Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BOARDINGHOUSE WORKERS.

DISPUTE BEFORE COUNCIL. ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYERS. REFUSE TO DISCUSS CLAIMS. | CASK FOR ARBITRATION COURT. J | I'iik Am ki.md ho.irditigliuu.se keepers' dis- : |'llti> , line before tilf. (.'cm ilwt.imi r<UUliil ; ycsteid.u . lull tin- refusal of the emI )'levers t.i ili-iii.vs the . hums of the em- : ployees resulted in the matter being refer' t<> the Arbitration Curt, f-r determutation. The. amplication f"r improved renditions was made by the Auckland \ Hotel and Restaurant Kmplayees' lndus- : trial I'm. of Workers. Mr. T. Ilarle ! Giles. Conciliation Commissioner, presided lat ilk' silting. Tin* assessors for the employers were Messrs. A. A. Brown. K. F. ;Bla.k. and Mrs. R. Barker, while the assessors for the employees were Messrs. j A. Jackson, F. Clapham, and J. Morton. ' Mr. S. K. Wright appeared for the em- | plovers, and Mr. T. Long for the em- | ployeos. The minimum weekly wages asked for ■ were as follows:—Kitchen, where rive <r . more hands are employed, chef £1 10s, I second £2 15s, others £1 10s: where four i hands employed, chef £3 15s, second £2 ! ss, others £1 10s; where three hands I employed, chef £5 10s, second £2 2s 6d, j others £1 10s; where two hands emj ployed, chef £2 10s. second £1 10s; where ! one hand employed. £2: kitchen hands I attending to boiler 5s extra. Diningroom, waiters £1 12s 6.1, waitresses £1 ss; j housemaid-waitresses. £1 2s 6d ; lu.'ve- '■ maids only, £1; pantry, males £1 10s, | females £1 2s 6d ; day porters. £1 10s; ■ night-porters, £1 12s 6d ■„ laundresses. I £1 7s 6d ; buttons, boys under 17 10s. I boys 17 and under 19 15s. The demands

also contained further provisions relating to the employment of casual labour. The employees asked that the hours of work should be regulated by the Shops and Offices Act, 1908. and its amendments in respect of restaurants, and further that, except in special circumstances, workers should not be brought bark to work after the conclusion of the day's work until after an interval of 10 hours. One day off in seven was also applied for. Where an employer did the work of any worker affected by the schedule set out above, the union asked that he or she should be counted as an employee. The demands contained the usual request for preference of employment to be given to unionists.

Claims Not Admitted

In their counter-proposals, the employers said they did not recognise that there was a dispute before the council, and that they did not admit any of the claims set forth in the demands of the union. They also submitted that no award should be made. In opening the proceedings the commissioner said he did not know that he had ever had similar counter-proposals to those of the employers riled before. Mr. Wright stated that the employers based their attitude on clause 53 of "the Arbitration Act. This meant that before a rase could be filed at all there must bo sorm-tiiing in dispute. In the present instance, tile employers were never approached l*?fore the tiling took place, therefore there was no dispute. Mr. Long declared that the dispute had been in existence for over six vears. While the Arbitration Court had on two previous occasions dismissed applications for awards, it had not dismissed the disputes as created between the parties. The hotel workers of New Zealand had a federation, and the present dispute was only a continuation of the disputes originated by that body and adjudicated upon by the Arbitration Court in Wellington and Dunedin. Mr. Long conaended that the dispute was prnperly before the council, all the requirements of the Act having been complied with. He suggested that the point might he argued between Mr. Wright and himself in the Arbitration Court.

Act Very Vague. The commissioner said the Arbitration ; Act gave him no power to strike out any . dispute. The clause in the Art relating to disputes was very vague. If it meant j that a dispute should be originated in a particular way, then the method should ib? defined by the Legislature. He did '- not think the employers should persist in the attitude they had adopted. If Mr. Long, having no doubt as to how the Arbitration Court would act, withdrew the present rase and started de novo. it only meant that the council would have to sit again in a few weeks' time. The union was a federated bodv, and that : being so, any action of the federated ' union m any part of New Zealand would have a direct tearing on a local dispute, raking all the circumstances into consideration, and realising that if the dispute were withdrawn, the whole procedure would have to be eono over acain the commissioner advised the emplovers either to waive the question as to whether the dispute was a proper one. and proceed to discuss the claims, or else accept Mr Longs suggestion to argue the matter «>e!ore the Arbitration Court. Question of Competition. Tn the course of further discussion Mr Unsjht said the employers maintained that Ix.ardmghouses could not work under an award at all. The Commissioner: You have coma to this decision, that no matter what, we do here you cannot come to anv satisfactory settlement with the union because you are convinced as emplovers that this is a kind of business which should not be brought under an award, vet, in the face of that you have the decision of the Court in regard to Wellington IvardinghoiLses. Mr. right : No. private hotels. The Commissioner: Do you maintain that th.-ro are no private hotels in Auckland at all?

Mr. Wright : The place* cited here are not private hotels in anv sens". The Commissioner: Well, are thev. as the Court distinctly lays down, places in competition with ii-ensed hotels" Mr. W relit : You might say that every bo.u.bughouse is in competition with the hotels.

Application of the Award. j The Commissioner: The question of wl«it houses should 1«. K„uul l.v the | award is too involved for me to elucidate ■ and I am not going to attonpt to do so' j I will leave it to the Court to decide what. [ places should come under the award but it seems to me that an award will be ; mad- m relation to some : .f these houses I Mr. \Yri K We had a large meeting lof onaidmghousektspers tl ther night i and they V :u<s<;\ a resolution that thev did | not recognise any depute, and that 'he foTT*"™ o" " 0t diS,U ' 3 :Ul - Vthin - be" Tlia Commissioner: 7 do not think that ' as >".«.*. is should rump here hound : J»ti--.iL- or anything . 15... They should ,■.„,„> , with an "I«" mind and with power to ; net. What 1 want to avoid in this case I is tn.' ( , i,-t holding that there has been j no attempt at conciliation. I Cp<m the suggestion of the Commie. i sinner the employers' assessors retired to | consider what course they should pursue. I When the returned Mr. Wright said the I assessors had decided that it would be ! impossible to rome to any recommendation | whi.h would cover all the boarding--1 houses, _ therefore it Would he simply a wa.-te of time to discuss the claims. The Commissioner; I am soiry that we have been unable to do anything. It will i 1..- for me to pass this case on to the Court of Arbitration, with a notification to the effect that the employers declined to discuss the claims on the grounds set forth in their counter-proposals, and also on the grounds that there are such vast differences in the classes of hoardinghouses cited that it would be. impossible to (.umo to any recommendation.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19150831.2.7

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16010, 31 August 1915, Page 4

Word Count
1,274

BOARDINGHOUSE WORKERS. New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16010, 31 August 1915, Page 4

BOARDINGHOUSE WORKERS. New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16010, 31 August 1915, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert