Arbitration Court Does Butchers' Award Cover Delicatessens?

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28284, 23 May 1957, Page 6

Arbitration Court Does Butchers' Award Cover Delicatessens?

The question whether a delicatessen shop was a butcher’s shop in that 20 per cent, of the turnover was of meat was argued in the Arbitration Court yesterday, when a claim by Alfred Charles Barnes, an inspector of awards, for a penalty of £lO for a breach of the South Island butchers’ award, against David Cyril Ashley Sheppard, proprietor of a delicatessen shop at Seaview road, New Brighton, was heard. The alleged breach was that defendant had failed to pay a woman employee the minimum rate of wages. Decision was reserved. Mr Justice Tyndall presided and with him were Messrs W. N. Hewitt (employers’ representative) and F. C. Allerby (workers’ representative). Mr R. J. Weir, of the Labour Department, appeared for the plaintiff and Mr H. F. Butland, secretary of the Canterbury Employers’ Association, for Sheppard. Exemption from closing hours fixed by the Canterbury butchers’ award of 1951 was given by the Magistrate’s Court in 1955 to the previous owner of the shop, which was then selling the same type of goods as at present, said Mi Weir. The employee, Mildred Airey, began her employment on April 30, 1956; and terminated it on December 8, 1956. She was paid £7 net a week. Evidence would be that she was a shop assistant and that her duties were substantially serving customers with cooked pork, ham, corned beef, pressed tongue and veal and small goods such as saveloys, sausages, pies, fresh pork bones and fillets and smoked pork bones. The rates of pay under the award came into force on August 9, 1956. It was submitted that the defendant was a party to the award.

Every award had cited parties conducting delicatessen shops, said Mr Weir. The case might well rest on whether the award applied to that type of business. It might be held that the rules of the Master Butchers’ Association of Employers did not cover it. Generally, females in the butchery industry nad been employed only in delicatessen shops. Alleged Offer

Mrs Airey said that before she gave her notice, defendant told her that back pay amounted to £lOO and offered her £6O in settlement.

His Honour: Are you still chasing it?—Yes. She said she did not know why she had been "picked on” as a witness • of all who had immigrated to New Zealand. It was "all haywire” to her. All she knew was that wages in a butcher’s shop were higher than she had received. Noel Stembridge Wills, assistantsecretary of the Amalgamated Shop Assistants’ Union, said that at the Conciliation Council hearing, the master Dutchers were very concerned at the inroads

into their trade by delicatessen shops and wanted them covered by the South Island butchers award. Mr Butland: If a firm which makes pies and pasties has more than 60 per cent, of its business in these meat products, would they be butchers under your classification?—l am afraid they would. Defendant’s Submission

Th submission that delicatessen factories and shops were not included in the butchery industry covered by the South Island butchers’ award was made by Mr Butland. Sheppard claimed he was not a party to the butchers’ award and was not bound by its provisions, he said. In 11 months, the purchases of fresh meats and hocks and trotters were 5.9 per cent, of the total purchases. All the other goods could be purchased at other shops. A large portion of the items sold was cooked meats and small goods, the business of which had not been held to be part of the butchery trade. The remaining goods were not seen in butchery shops. "A delicatessen shop showing the lines listed in the volume shown in the analysis of purchases in the statement submitted to the Court does not come within the industry generally known as .the butchery trade,” Mr Butland submitted.