EMPLOYERS APPROACH TO CONCILIATION; OPINIONS DIFFER

Wanganui Chronicle, 4 October 1949, Page 5

EMPLOYERS APPROACH TO CONCILIATION; OPINIONS DIFFER

WELLINGTON, Last Night (P.A.) —Difference of opinion about the employers’ approach to industrial conciliation proceedings developed In the Court of Arbitration today. Mr. F. G. Young, secretary of the New Zealand Hotel Workers' Federation, said private hotel employers had been more obstructive in this case than had the employers in any other dispute he had handled in 18 years. He was presenting an application for a new national award for private hotel workers.

The advocate for the employers, Mr J. R, Hanlon, challenged Mr. Young’s allegations, and was still making his submissions when the court adjourned until tomorrow. Mr. Young declared that no real attempt was made by the employers in the Conciliation Council to reach agreement in this dispute. Little real progress was made and most of the important clauses remained unsettled.

The employers were persistent in their claim that they desired to supply the public with cheap board and lodgings, continued Mr. Young. With this policy his union was in cordial agreement so long as it was not effected at the expense of the workers employed in the industry. “To show their insincerity,” continued Mr Young, "we need only point out that in the capital city only a minority of ordinary private hotels carry out the function of a private hotel and supply their guests with full board and lodging. Others, almost without exception, are supplying bed and breakfast, or bed and tray at very remunerative rZes, and employ Very few, if any, staff.” Mr. Young said that in spite of repeated efforts by the employers’ agent it was found impossible to get employers together or get them to agree io anything. He submitted it for the court to determine whether they were fairly meeting their obligations under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act during Conciliation Council proceedings, and whether they Were giving the court the co-opera-tion is was entitled to expect. Mr. Hanlon objected to Mr. Young’s allegations that the employers were responsible for all the delay that had taken place. Mr. Young had referred (o private hotels becoming bed and breakfast establishments. Some were being driven into a position where they could supply only bed and breakfast partly by claims such as those now put forward by the union, and partly by shortages of staff. He submitted that the position of private hotels was different from that of the licensed trade, where losses on the accommodation side were frequently carried by profits on the sale of liquor. Private hotel employers had not been able to obtain an increase in tariff since 1937.