13

I.—9a.

E. OABET.J

16. Mr. Luke.] The assistant has the right t<i demand his two days.' -Yee, but in ope oase the men demanded it, and did not got it for two years. If 1 had demanded ii I should haw been dismissed, and if one man insisted on getting it his place would be made uncomfortable for him. I ,i,, |~,t gee, from the employers' point of view, thai it would do them much good. It i- bringing in oontentious matter. The employers have bowed to the inevitable in the matter of the halfholiday, and this provision would make a hit of work for th. Department. The half-holiday, which has been in existence in every Stale in Australia, and here fur some time, should nol Ih' taken away from u>. The next provision, with reference to wages ami hours, is varj necessary, w< , are working Under an award of the Court, and 1 know that the men are winking regular overtime every week. I know one hotel where the hours are seventy-seven per week for the men. The employer pays them a leu shillings extra, ami that is deemed compensation. The object of the award' and the Hill would be defeated if this were not put in. We do not want overtime a! all, and we think si.xtv hours, as proposed in this Hill, is quite long enough for the class of work we have to occupy ourselves in. With regard to the words "wages ami overtime-book," we should like it to read " wages and time-book," as in the other Aote. Some of tin employers mighi say that as their men do not work overtime it is not necessary for them to keep a I k "I haw only „,,, i,, ;,,, overtime-book, and nol a time-book." Then the onus is thrown on Ihe men to prove thai overtime has Ikvii worked: hut, if a book were kept, (he book itself would prove that over time had been worked. l(i. Hon. Mr. Millar. J The book would Ik , no formed that where the men worked overtime it would lie shown. The cry has Imvii that an undue amount of work has taken place. ll has been the custom to keep a wages and overtime book, and we want all the shops brought in. We want to find out the proportion of yoking people to adults employed, and unless we have that put in it is impossible to gel accurate information. You refer to clause 10, which does not applj I" shop-assistants alone?—We should like it made '-time." for th;' reason that some employers play on the word. 1 am instructed on this more than anything else to ask the Labour Hills Committee whether they cannot see their way char, instead of giving us the half-holiday as proposed, to give U a whole day in the week. It' is the very keen intention of this union and other unions, and even the Chrietchurch union too, that th/ whole holiday should be given. We see no reason why Ih,. men ami women workers in hotels should not be granted one deal daj a week. The Sydney award I read is very clear. Before the award was mail, in Sydney the management of the hotels themselves introduced the clear day, because in large places where l< 'it \ or fifty people were employed they thought it was easier to get the men to work sixty hours in six days and then to give them a whole day off; and in places like the Botel Australia, in Sydney, there are five men off every day. I have already given evidence on this poini in connection with Mr. Fisher's Hill. 17." The Chairman.] Your evidence given in connection with Mr. Kishcr's Hill will be taken ill connection with this Hill? I am pleased to hear that, and will not labour that matter now. The members of the Chrietchurch union were not asked whether they would prefer the Hill introduced by Mr. Millar and the six days in addition. 1 understand they wer. asked if they would favour the Hill us drawn by Mr. Millar on the one hand, or a Hill giving us the six days a week. We took no part in connection with this matter, but called a meeting bj circular and had a fair attendance; ami. BO far as I understand them, the men are thoroughly disappointed that there is no provision in this Hill that gives them the whole day. So far as lam i cerned. and so far as the more enthusiastic members of our union are concerned, we are not going to rest until Mr. Millar gives us such a provision. There is one other provision 1 should like to mention that has reference to the arbitration award. I understand from several employers themselves that Mr. I'rvor, who is looking after their interest, ifl coming along to the Labour Hills Committee to state that by introducing this measure you are overstepping the Arbitration Act, and doing something that should not l>c done. When we had to approach the Arbitration Court a little less than two years ago we asked for things regulating our oondition. The Court refused to have anything to do with the matter of holidays, and said it was a matter for Parliament to deal with. The" paragraph at the bottom of the award is m follows: ■'The Court has not dealt with the subject of holidays in hotels, as that has been dealt with by Parliament in 'The Shops and Offices Act Amendment Act, 1907.'" The men are of opinion that, if the conditions already proposed by this Hill are propel', Parliament should say so, and it is not fair for Mr. Pryor to say that our case has had a thorough investigation before ths Court. Such an investigation has never been given. In 1907 the matter was hurried, and we were not so prepared as we might hare been. The awards in the other districts are merely compromises based on the Wellington award, and not awards of the Arbitration Court. In no instance except in our case was evidence taken by the Arbitration Court. The Court bases its decision, in Dunedin, Christchurch, and Auckland, on the Wellington award. When Iw, nl to Dunedin they said. " All right Iwe will give you the Wellington award"; and when I went to Chrietchuroh the same thing happened: bo that the award has been Liven more by way of compromise than anything else. In all countries and States the Government* have passed legislation affecting hotel employees. We do not say that Parliament should tix our wages or details as to the time of starting, but we do sa\ that, in connection with the hours and holidays, and general regulation of the trade, it is the duty of Parliament to say what hall lie the conditions. We are only organized in the four centres, and do not probably represent I « thai tenth of the trade, and so cannot get protection for all. We haw tried to Let a union in Wanganui ; but it has never been stable enough to get into such a condition a< to approach the Court. We ask-that, whatever may be said by the other side as to the action of Parliament attempting to give us better conditions, it shall be disallowed ami discountenanced. That is all I have to say about the Bill. 18. linn. Mr. Millar.] I said just now that a cook had b, en held to be a shop-assistant. I have the case now, as reported in the Labour Journal for March, 1909: "F. H. Gibbons, hotelkeeper,