RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16013, 3 September 1915, Page 3

RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES.

CLAIMS NOT RECOGNISED.

CASE FOR ARBITRATION.

Thh dispute lodged by the Auckland Hotel and Restaurant Employees' Union in regard to employees in restaurants, tearooms and oyster saloons, came before the Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. T. Harle Giles, yesterday, but the refusal of the employers to discuss the claims led to the matter being passed on to the Arbitration Court. The employers based their attitude on the ground that the dispute was not properly before the council. The wages and conditions asked for by the union were similar to the demands upon which the award at present in force was framed. Messrs. A. Jackson, F. Clapham, and J. Morton were assessors for the union, and Messrs. F. Prior, S. M. Whitehead, and T. Nairn were assessors for the employers. Mr. T. Long appeared on behalf of the union, and Mr. S. E. Wright conducted the case for the employers.

! The principal wages asked for were: Kitchen : Where four or more hands are employed, chef £3 15s, second £2 10s, others £1 10s; where three bands are employed, chef £3 10s, second £2 2s 6d, third £1 Id; where two hands are employed, chef £2 10s,. second, £1 15s; where one is employed, male £2 Ss, female £2; oyster-openers, £2. Diningroom : Waiters £1 15s, waitresses £1 ss. The union asked that the hours'of work should be regulated by the Shops and Offices Act, 1908, and its amendments. One day off in seven was also asked for, with the exception that workers employed in establishments closed for business on Sundays should receive a half-holiday from, the hour of 2 p.m. on one of the working days of the week. The employers, in their counter-pro-posals, said they did not recognise that there was any dispute with the union.

Suggestion to Employers. The commissioner characterised the counter-proposals as being remarkable for their brevity. He suggested that the employers might discuss the claims of the union and reserve the point as to whether the dispute had been properly filed for argument before the Arbitration Court. The employers would be perfectly safeguarded. Mr. Wright said the same question had been argued in the boardinghouse-keepers' case this week, and he failed to see that there was any necessity to discuss it further. They contended that they had never been approached by the union. The employers had requested him to ask the union whether it was prepared to withdraw its claims until the conclusion of the war.

" We are not going to agree to any such proposal," declared Mr. Lang. The union had not moved for a new award earlier, because it was anxious to see how the war would affect the restaurant business. However, the Arbitration Court had removed thb embargo regarding applications for awards during the war, and had granted awards respecting restaurant employees in Wellington and in Dunedin. The union wtfl therefore justified in proceeding with its claims. The interpretation of an industrial dispute was " any dispute arising with one or more emoloyers." Mr. Wright did not represent all the employers, and it was not competent for him to say that a dispute had not arisen with " one or more employers." The Commissioner: If vou can prove that you have discussed this matter with one employer cited here, then the requirements of the Act have been complied with.

Mr. Long: I would be prepared "to go before the Court to prove that. Mr. Wright said the interpretation as to what constituted an industrial dispute did not become effective until a dispute had been created.

Mr. Long: You are taking part in an industrial dispute now. Mr. Wright: No. we are here in obedience to the orders of the commissioner.

Employers* Offer Rejected. Mr. Long : Well, I am not here in obedience to the orders of the commissioner. I am here to take part in an industrial dispute, and so are you. There are many ways out of this difficulty. It is competent for us to make an application extending the Wellington award to this district. I am going to recommend strongly that my union should adopt that course. There will be no difficulty in gettin the award, one way or the other. The commissioner expressed the oninion that the definition of an industrial dispute should be settled once and for all. In the course of further discussion, Mr. Long said the dispute was created in 1911. He was prepared to entertain any suggestion that would bring about a settlement. Something in that "direction ought to be done.

Mr. Prior: We will go this far: We will abide by the present award for 12 months, or until the end of the war, whichever way the union decides. This proposal was not acceptable to Mr. Long. The commissioner said that as the employers declined to discuss the claims, he had no alternative but to refer the matter to the Arbitration Court. '

In moving a vote of thanks to" the commissioner, Mr. Prior said it was not through anv fault of the commissioner's that a settlement had not been arrived at.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Jackson and carried.