SHOPPING HOURS BILL

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27688, 18 June 1955, Page 8

SHOPPING HOURS BILL

Opposition By Mr F. P. Walsh RECONSIDERATION URGED (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON. June 17. If the Shops and Offices Bill was put into effect in its present form it would extend hours, cut wages, allow child labour to be exploited, and interfere with the right of the Arbitration Court to make awards, the president of the New Zealand Federation of Labour (Mr F. P. Walsh) said in submissions to the Parliamentary Labour Bills Committee today. It was almost unbelievable in an enlightened age that the Government, without a mandate, should set out to turn back the clock almost a century, said Mr Walsh. The bill proposed to give power to a judge alone to make awards Effecting the opening and closing hours oi shops, irrespective of conciliation agreements between the parties, he said. Further, it proposed to interfere with the present right of the Arbitration Court to make majority decisions, which had been in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act since 1894. The federation thought it was fundamental for the Court of Arbitration to have the power to make majority decisions. If the provision taking away the power for the Court to reach majority decisions were given effect to the Court could refuse to make an a./ard agreed to by the parties so far as it affected hours, said Mr Walsh. “If that is done it will ho doubt lead to turmoil throughout the country,” he said. “Do you want that state of affairs? Sureh- the employers and the workers are the best judges of what should go into an award. I say you have not given due consideration to this proposal. Do you want to see in this country what is going on in the United Kingdom today? “I am not making any threats, but we will be pretty weak-kneed and spineless if we allow anybody, the Government or anybody else, to take away something we have had since 1894.

“I say that if you endeavour to amend the law affecting the seamen, the watersiders and the miners to this extent, you will not be able to get away with it. There will i e complete unanimity among the workers to prevent this happening.”

Mr Walsh said he thought the bill wac also extending the right of the banks to work their employees without paying o" me, and the federation was greatly concerned at any suggestion of asking workers to work overtime without payment of overtime rates. Industrial Relations “If the bill is put away there is a reasonable chance that happy industrial relationships will' continue,” said Mr Walsh. “If the bill becomes the law we will have had industrial relationships. “I say that disputes should be settled by the Court of Arbitration. What serves the country best is that disputes should be settled by arbitration, and not by direct action and fighting it out. If you believe the system of arbitration should continue I ask you not to give effect to this bill. If it becomes law I can see that a severe strain will be put on arbitration. Can you blame the workers objecting when you take away majority decisions and hand to one individual matters that affect employers and workers?” If the bill was proceeded with, the federation would be compelled to call its council together and see the Minister of Labour (Mr W. Sullivan) and the Prime Minister about the position. /‘We feel that in making new provisions regarding shop assistants you have picked them out because they are the weakest link in the chain. If you want to make a grave for yourselves put this bill into operation,” said Mr Walsh. “I appeal to you not to dig your own graves.” In answer to Mr G. F. Sim (Wai--1 ato), Mr Walsh said he believed in a 40-hour. but not a five-day week. The industry he represented (the seamen) had given a good week service and so had the railways, but where the workers and employers agreed that the service was not necessary, why should the hours be extended? The federation did not believe in a five-day 40-hour week worked from Monday to Friday, he said. Trams, trains, and ships had to be operated over seven days. Mr Sullivan said Mr Walsh had said he believed in operating essential services, and that he would not deprive people of the opportunity of obtaining the essentials of life.

Mr Walsh replied that he did not think drinking hours should be extended. Milk was an essential sevenday service, but not butter, which could be kept. “Who is more able to define essentials than the housewife or the roomers?” asked Mr Sullivan.’