HOTEL WORKERS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22579, 18 November 1936, Page 15

HOTEL WORKERS

DEDUCTION FROM WAGES BOARD AND LODGINGS COURT ASKED FOR DECISION [BY TKI.EGKAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION] WELLINGTON, Tuesday By means of an application for an interpretation of the licensed hotel workers' award, the private hotel workers' award, and the tearoom and restaurant workers' award, the Arbitration Court was asked to-day to decide whether deductions can be made by an employer from the basic wage for males or females in cases in which the employer supplies the worker with lodgings or supplies the worker with board, or with both. If the answer is in the affirmative, the Court is asked what is a fair and equitable amount for the employer to he permitted to deduct for those services. After statements had been presented on behalf of the workers and the employers, the Court reserved its decision. On behalf of the workers, Mr. F. G. Young said they did not agree that the basic wage fixed was sufficient for the purpose intended and were anxious that further reductions should not bo made the contention that goods or services were being supplied. The Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1936, did not authorise reductions in the basic wage or payment otherwise than in cash except at the Court's direction. Mr. Young drew attention to injustices that arose in the manner of making deductions for meals which it was inconvenient for a worker to eat at the place of his work. If the Court ruled that it could authorise deductions to be made by an employer under awards for board and lodging provided by the employer, the workers asked if, in the opinion of the Court, the prerogative of deciding whether board and lodging should be provided rested entirely with the employer or should be bv mutual consent.

Mr. W. J. Mountjoy, for the employers, contended that hoard and lodgings had a value according to the amount the award required should be paid i,n lieu of them, and, further, that board and lodging having been given, the money value of such board and lodgings became part of the wages. Jn substantiation of this he quoted the clauses in the award providing for allowances and the definition in the award of "full pay" as cash wages plus the amount allowed for board and lodgings as provided in the award. FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY DISTURBING OUTLOOK EMPLOYERS' CONTENTION £B\- TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION - ] / WELLINGTON, Tuesday The claims of the employees, the applicants in the industrial dispute today between the New Zealand Federated Footwear Trades Industrial Association of Workers and the New Zealand Footwear Manufacturers' Association, were described by one of the assessors for the employers as "drastic" and "fantastic," and not in the best interests of the industry. Such claims, lie said, would mean the ruination of the industry.

Mr. H. B. Duckworth, of Christchurch, respondents' assessor, said the shoe industry was a protected one, relying for its existence on a 20 per cent tariff protection against the products of England and many other parts of the British Empire. Wage costs and general production costs in England were much lower than those in New Zealand at the present time. The recent legislation in the Dominion had increased costs during the last few months. The weekly output had been reduced as the result of the 40-hour week, without any decrease in pay. The future outlook of the industry was very disturbing, as New Zealand-made shoes would have to meet very serious competition from overseas, where costs had not proportionately increased. Imports had recently increased and this was the writing on the wall. Mr. Duckworth admitted that the position in the industry to-day was healthy.