AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume L, Issue 14697, 31 August 1915, Page 7

AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE.

BOARDING HOUSE EMPLOYEES CONCERNED. - (Per United Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Aug. 30. A most unusual - case came before tbs C.nc.liation Commissioner, j\lr T. Harle Giles, this morning, when' the boarding-house keepers of- Auckland declined to proceed with the dispute in which tliey nad been cited by the hotel and restaurant employees. The Industrial Union of Workers put forward a long list of claims, m)ainly in regard to wages, the hours and conditions of labour. The employers’ coun-ter-proposals were ‘‘ The employers do not recogir.se that there is a dispute before the Conciliation Council. They do not admit any of the claims of the UnLn; they submit as their counter-, proposals, that no award should •W made.” , l . The Coittmissioner remarked that he had, never before liad .such counter-pro-posals offered. ' Mx S. Wright, representing the employers; quoted in suppo. t of the coun-ter-proposals Section 73 of the Act. Before the case could bo filed, ho 'claimed./ there had ‘to be something in di’i put© ’ before the present proceedings were initiated. There had been no negotiations of any kind between the Union and the employers, therefore there was no dispute. .Mr T. Long, for the Union, said the depute had, been in existence for six years. On two previous occasions it had been before the Court. Furthermore, it was a continuation of the dispute that had arisen in -.Wellington and. Duumdin. In both those places the, Court had granted awards. Mr. Wright said they were prepared to submit this point to the Arbitration Court, “ but we will not argue any other points in the meantime. Commissioner: Section 85'is'.the only cause of the Act dealing with the point raised by ' the employers, and it is admittedly vuguo ; hut it may, lio taken for granted that if it Were necessary to , define the way a dispute is, tor.originate the Act would contain that definition; but after all. is. the point worth anything ? Supposing 1 were to declare that there is no dispute, it would only mean deferring the business for a certain time. As Commissioner T do not think tbs employers are justified in taking this course. After all, it is ony a quibble.’ The employers are. I think, taking up quite the wrong attitude, and I am convinced that if. the matter goes before the Arbitration Court the Judge will .say so, and will, refer the matter back to the Council Is it worth while prolonging the agony 0 Mr Wrght ; A large meeting of the beardingJiouse keepers' a few nights ago discussed the .whole matter and passed a resolution declining to /admit a dispute, and dedining to proceed with the case before the Conciliation Council, so we can go no further. The Commissioner: Had you not hotterask for an adjournment, and hold another meeting to reconsider the matter ? The Arbitration Court wit. decline to hear any case in which an effort has not first been made to reach a settlement through the Coacfiiatdon Council. . . The, employers’ acsessors asked leave to Withdraw and consider the points raised. On returning Mr Wright announced’, that there were such differences in the boarding-houses that it would be ■ im-. pritwibe to have an award covering nil of them, consequently it would be only a waste of time to proceed with the <We now. Mr Long . If the employers are going to persist in- that attitude, nothing more can be done. The Commissioner : Under the circunifttancea I can only send the case on to ■the Arbitration Court with a statement of the points put forward, and nn~intimation that the employers liad ro- I fused to submit their case 1 to the moth- I ods of conciliation. . ‘ V I