W PRYOB.

9

i.—i)B.

be very far wrong; and we consider that when the parties themselves in various parts of the Dominion arrive at these agreements, tiie awards are based on the hours provided for and agreed to, but when you take away the hours you take away the basis of the whole award However recognizing that something will probably be done, and that to some extent it is futile to stand out and say we will not have it, the employers concerned have wisely decided to come to the Committee and say, ' We will agree to a compromise, and ask that the'hours should be sixty-two for males and fifty-eight for females." Now, in that connection, when the Wellington dispute was last before the Arbitration Court the question of Australian conditions came in ' The union put forward that in Australia shorter hours were worked, and especially mentioned the New South Wales award. The union, however, was not prepared to accept the New South Wales award, because, while the Australian awards carried shorter hours, they did not give some conditions that are in operation here; and the union would not have it. 1 submit, if you are taking one thing into consideration you must take all. I have got a still .stronger point to make Previously hotels and restaurants in New South Wales worked under a fifty-eight-hours law Now they have evidently found that insufficient, and the latest New South Wales award makes it fifty-eight and sixty-three— almost the same as we are asking to-day 13. The Chairman.] Where did that cover ?—Sydney In any case Mr Carey, of the union had that before him in the Court, and they would not accept the* New South Wales award. The other conditions were not good enough. In regard to subsection (b) of section 5, we ask that the ten hours should be altered to eleven hours. It is absolutely necessary that there should not be that limit without extending the working-hours; and that has been shown by the unions meeting the employers in the past, and recognizing that even more than eleven hours are necessary at times of rush or exceptional work coming on Of course, the employer who takes advantage of that simply shortens himself on other days. Subsection (2) of section sof the Bill reads, ; Such work-ing-hours may, with the previous written consent (if the Inspector, be extended, but not for more than three hours in any one day, and not more than ninety hours in any one year ' We ask that the words "with the previous consent of the Inspector " "be deleted. It is very frequently quite impossible for an employer to notify an Inspector For instance, a rush comes in at dinnertime—6.3o or 7—or a steamer or train arrives perhaps quite suddenly, the Labour Department office is closed, and it is quite impossible for the employers to give notice to the Inspector. We propose the words should be added, "Written notice must within twenty-four hours be given to an Inspector of any time so worked.' That would mean that it would be a breach of the Act if notice were not given. I have no doubt the departmental officers will admit that it is more practicable than the other proposal—in fact, the other proposal would be impracticable. It is just at the rush time when they have not time to arrange for other hands that overtime work is necessary We ask that in the same section the word "ninety" be altered to "one hundred and twenty," making the limit 120 in any one year Employers are not going to work their assistants overtime if they can help it, but the exigencies of the business are such that it cannot be controlled as a factory business can, and we submit that the request for 120 hours is a reasonable request. Subsection (4) of section 5 reads at present, "Section seven of the principal Act shall extend and apply to the limitations imposed by this section"; and section 7 provides, "In order to prevent any evasion or avoidance of the limitation imposed on the employment of shopassistants by the last preceding section, the following provisions shall apply in the case of every shop-assistant • (a.) The shop-assistant shall not be employed in or about'the shop or its business during meal-times, or during the intervals for rest and refreshment." I should like to point out that in the hotel business it is quite impossible in certain cases to give the ordinary mealhours. They work the time through, the meal-time is counted, and certain assistants take their meals, and are at call while taking their meals. It may be said that that is very hard on the assistants, but Mr Beveridge will give you definite information showing that an attempt to have proper sit-down meals for certain sections of his met with failure, because of refusal on the part of the employees to observe those hours. So that you can see it is a proviso which if passed would be impossible to obey, and you could have employers up under it every day in the year if this subclause goes in as it is. We ask that it be altered on the lines that I have indicated. 14. Mr McLaren.] But it does not extend?—We want that it shall not extend; otherwise it might be held to do so. In regard to subsection (5) of section 5, it states, "Sections eleven to twenty of the principal Act shall not apply to hotels or restaurants."' We ask that section 38 of the principal Act shall be included in that, so that it will read " Sections eleven to twenty and section thirty-eight of the principal Act shall not apply to hotels or restaurants." In some hotels the assistants—as well as in some restaurants —are continually there—they have their meals there and sleep there, and the Inspectors would only have to catch them there, and that in itself would be a breach of the Act. The character of the business requires certain regulations, and that sections 37 and 38 should be included under the exemption as provided for under subsection (5). In the case of section 6we ask for the deletion of the words " such working-day " in line 21 and line 22, for the reasons put forward previously —because this section applies specially to night-porters. In the case of section 7we ask that the words "who so desires" in line 26 shall be deleted. This is a section giving the right for the employee to have the option. Now, you as business men will recognize, and it must appeal to you as men of the world, that the employer, and only the employer, must be the person to regulate the conditions of his own business, and wherever the conditions of his business require that he should adopt the weekly holiday- or the permit, that he should be entitled to do it. Otherwise it means confusion in any business. If you make the law differently you will have one assistant choosing one thing, and another another thing, and in our opinion these words should be deleted. That gives the employer the option of being the regulator of his own affairs. In line 27 we ask that the word " seven " be altered to " four," making it a period of four days including Sunday 2—l, 9b,