CHAIN STORES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21321, 14 November 1934, Page 9

CHAIN STORES

* • MANAGERS' GUILD APPEAL REGISTRATION AS UNION Decision was reserved on the appeal by the Canterbury Chain Store Grocery Managers' Guild against the refusal of the Registrar of Industrial Unions to register the guild as a union, heard before the Arbitration Court yesterday. His Honour Mr Justice Frazer presided and with him were Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers* representative) and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees' representative). The case for the appellant guild was conducted by Mr R. A. Young, and opposed by Mr A. W. Croskery, secretary of the Shop Assistants' Federation. Mr Young said that the guild was formed early in the year, but., its application for registration as an industrial union was refused. Its objects were to protect and further the interests of its members in any lawful way. In the Canterbury district there were 28 managers employed by the Self-Help Stores, 12 by the Star Stores, and five by Tuck's, Ltd. All of these were members of the guild. Mr Young submitted that the section of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, under which the application was dismissed, was intended to prevent the "needless multiplicity" of industrial unions, but that this did not mean that there should be one union only. He realised that the onus was on the appellant guild to prove that diversity of interests or other substantial reasons existed to necessitate the formation of another union. At the present time the only union in the trade was the Grocery Assistants' Union, to which the managers of chain stores would have to belong if they wished to become members of a union. Diversity of interests existed, making it more convenient for members of the guild to register separately than to join the existing union. On January 17, 1934, the appellant guild entered into an agreement with the proprietors of the chain stores, under the Labour Disputes Investigation Act, 1913, securing wages 10s to 15s above those paid to senior grocers assistants.

New Class of Employee The chain store system, a recent development, and one probably not even contemplated when the Grocery Assistants' Union was formed in 1921, had created a new class of employee, the managers of the stores, who could not properly be called grocers' assistants. The headquarters of their employers were not in Christchurch. They were branch managers who had the power of buying goods locally, keeping the books, employing and dismissing assistants, paying wages, and handling the money taken, which varied from £IOO to £SOO or £6OO a week. It was true that if one of their employees was dissatisfied he had the right of appeal to the agent in Christchurch of National Distributors, through whom the majority of the goods to be sold came. In each of the chain stores the relationship of servant and master existed. The manager exercised complete control: he had to enforce discipline, and it was not advisable that he should meet and mingle with his assistants at a union meeting. In the event of industrial disputes they would be placed in an invidious position. Would they owe first allegiance to tueir union, if they were members of the Grocery Assistants' Union, or to the absentee employers whom they represented? . , Mr Young argued that trade rivalry had been extended into the field of industrial relationships and Quoted two advertisements in the "New Zealand Worker," urging support of the Four

Square stores because they paid union rates of wages. Mr Young then examined the rules of the existing union, and endeavoured to show how conflict might arise if the managers were members. He argued that extra voting power possessed by the assistants might keep managers out of responsible positions on the union.

His Honour: You suggest that in industrial circles the cream does not always rise to the ton? Mr Montelth: Would not the assistants, who it has been shown are mostly boys, realise that their interests as members of a union would best be served by the managers* brains? Mr Youpg: I am showing what might happen. , .„ * Evidence was then given by Albert George Simmonds and William John Clark, president and secretary of the guild, in support of Mr Young's submissions. The idea of the guild was stated to be the creation of a better understanding between the managers and the employers than would exist if the managers were members of the present union. Both witnesses agreed that discipline might be endangered if the managers belonged to the same union as their assistants.

The Signing of the Agreement Clark was cross-examined by Mr Croskery concerning the agreement entered into between the guild and the employers. Mr Croskery suggested that it was signed when the guild did not as yet exist. His Honour: It was apparently signed and agreed to by the executive and confirmed at a later meeting. Clark said that the agreement must have been ante-dated, but not signed until after the election of officers. In reply to Mr Monteith, witness said that the whole agreement was before the meeting, but that only the points on which there were queries were recorded in the minutes. „ Further evidence was given by William Tuck, president of the Canterbury Chain Stores Industrial Union of Employers, who gave as his opinion that the formation of the suggested union would be in the interests of the employers, and that it was not in their interests to deal with branch managers through the existing industrial union. In reply to a question Tuck admitted that the agreement to which reference had been made was signed m the offices of the Canterbury Employers Association. , ~„ Simmonds was recalled, and Mr Croskery cross-examined on the suesT5 ues T tion of the date of the agreement and the records in the minute book, tor Croskery said that the document was registered with the Clerk of Awards on January 19, but the meeting at which it was supposed to have been signed was not held until three days later. Witness explained that minutes of the early meetings were taken on slips of paper; the minute book was procured later and these minutes then copied into it. Mr Croskery: How do you explain that the document was registered with the Clerk of Awards three days before you had authority to sign it? Subsequent questioning revealed the possibility of the meeting having taken place on January 17.

The Appeal Opposed

Mr Croskery criticised the case put forward strongly. The agreement, lie said, had been read over to one of the signatory parties in the offices of the Canterbury Employers' Association. A body of men with no industrial knowledge, they were led like lambs to the slaughter. The agreement meant nothing at all. Evidence seemed to show that at the time of its signing there was no guild in existence. It did not give to chain store managers in Christchurch a portion of the privileges they enjoyed in Auckland and Wellington under the union award. There it had been unanimously agreed that managers could come under the same award as the grocers' assistants. Mr Young, he submitted, had advanced no substantial reason why a separate award should be necessary in Chrjstchurch. Mr Croskery referred to "these glorified shop assistants" who were appeal- ! ing for a separate union to do some-

thing for them. He alleged that the master mind was Mr B. Sutherland, who had been fighting trade unions from North Cape to Bluff. Reference had been made to the rules of the union by Mr Young, continued Mr Croskery; but he could produce evidence to show that in practice branch managers occupied executive positions in the union. They were asking fpr extra considerations because of their work. In point of fact, their extra responsibility was small; it had been shown in evidence that in Christchurch their assistants were youths under the age of 20. Their difficulties had been magnified considerably. Provision was made for branch managers in the existing awards.