I.-9A.

20

W. 1'liYOl!.

we Uave awarde in operation, and if the conditions under which the employees are working ar< unsatisfactory it is a very small matter for the union in their district to appl} for a new award. 20. My (|iiestion is, what proportion of euch employees throughout the country is there outside the unions and having no right of appeal to the Arbitration Court?—l cannot tell you; but 1 must add to thai thai there are industrial unions in operation in every industrial district or practically in every industrial district—and therefore, if they have not goi into unions, either the union officials have nol been sufficiently active or the employees have uo cause for dissatisfaction with their work; and if there is no dissatisfaction there is no necessity for this Act. 21. Are the shop-assistants in the small country towns to be affected by this legislation.' I take it that it applies to the whole country, from the waybaok publiohouse to the Empire Hotel or the Royal Oak Hotel. 22. Are I hose assistants in small country places members of industrial organizations.' I do not know. 1 say there is nothing to stop them from becoming members. The unions are established for them. 2,' i. In section 2 you ask to add the words " where three or more assistants exclusive of the members of the occupier's family are employed." Would not Ihat give large latitude? -You surely admit the necessity of keeping the cradles full, and do not want to penalise those who have large families. 24, In subsection (b) of section 5, is not what you are asking for extreme twelve hours instead of ten hours a dayi —The latest agreement made ill hotels ami restaurants provides that the hours of work for all classes shall not exceed sixty-five hours, but nol more than twelve hours shall be worked in any one day. 25. What is the maximum in the other awards.' Eleven hours. 2(>. So you are asking us to interfere with the Arbitration Court awards.' You have set the example. If you take us on our own ground we sa\ " Wipe it "vi ilii not interfere with the Arbitration Court awards." '11. Mr. Fisher.] Have you any objection to the Sunday Labour Bill? Yes, we have very strong objection. As we said before, we think it is impracticable svith regard to industries thai are compelled to work seven days a week, and 1 explained to the Committee that we had not gone \{'fv largely into it on account of this Shops and Offices Hill overriding it. 28. Are you aware that that is the law in Canada, I'ranoe, Italy, and Germany?—l know there are similar laws in other parts of the world, but the conditions of those other countries would have to lie taken into consideration when considering this. 29. Would you suggest that places like Switzerland and France, in which the tourist business is so enormous, can adopt it and we cannot here? Those other countries have not g»< an army of inspectors such as we have here. 30. Do you not think if we passed the law it would be observed.' Yes. lint I think it is impracticable. 31. Do you think the Bill is unworkable, say. in a city like Wellington, excluding pastoral and agricultural districts.' Anything is workable if expense is no eonsiderat ion. but if you find in connection with one class of business thai figures of a reliable house could be laid before you and made subject to the strictest accountancy that would prove that the restriction of one day a week in that business would mean, if not ruin, something like it, would you be prepared to go on with it? 32. Can you show thatf—l think so. 33. Will you prove that? —I think so. Of course there are other objections, but that is one thing. James Sydney Pamier, Hotel-proprietor, Auckland, examined. (No. 6.) 1. The Chairman.] Are you a member of the Employers' Federation?— No. 1 am president of the hicensed Victuallers' Association. 2. You wish to give evidence on the Bill as showing how it affects your trade speciallyf—Yes. 3. You may make your own statement in your own way?—l have listened to all the evidence that has been given by Mr. Pryor, and the whole matter has been very carefully considered, and 1 practically indorse all that you have heard from Mr. Pryor. In practical experience I find that the continued introduction of legislation of the nature that is contained in this proposed Bill is ver\ oppressive and very irksome. It is liable to create a feeling of unrest and irritation amongst at least a section of the employees. It makes our work more or less embarrassing, and our business generally, for some time past, and even now, is of a more or less embarrassing nature. Legislation of this character has a tendency, in my opinion, to bolster up protective ideas and notions with not the best class of worker, but with those who look to do as little as possible, and get as much as possible in return. It also has the effect of creating internal unrest. It is no uncommon thing for the employees in hotels nowadays to gather together, both in and out of working-hours, and institute a system of irritating agitation amongst one another; and for those reasons, and also the fact that this kind of legislation increases our expenditure considerably, I desired to put my views before you. There is no getting away from tin , fact thai during the past year lam advised— and I also speak from experience—that the volume of business done has been reduced, and consequently the different businesses will not stand continual increases in order to meet and comply with regislation of this character. In Auckland we are working under an award which received consideration, and as one who assisted in the framing of that award I may say that there was not any occasion for us to go to the Arbitration Court. Employer and employee agreed mutually to the terms of the award. That award provides for a maximum of sixty-five hours. The duties of employees in hotels are not, in my opinion, on all-fours or identical witli the duties that are performed in other businesses. They are necessarily more or less of an intermittent nature, and there is a considerable