THE PRESS THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977. Fixing shop hours

Press, 2 June 1977, Page 12

THE PRESS THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1977. Fixing shop hours

Today's meeting of shop assistants in Christchurch will wrestle with a difficult problem. Although the signs are that shop employees generally are opposed to any idea of an extension or variation of shopping hours, this should not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Shop Trading Hours Bill is a bad bill The virtue of the bill is that it clarifies the procedure for determining shopping hours and specifies the considerations that should be taken into account.

In spite of the general distaste among shop employees for changes in hours of work—and, for that matter, among many shopkeepers—it seems reasonable that the law should allow for some flexibility in shop hours. At present it is possible, if rare, for employers and employees to negotiate awards to provide for exceptional hours Local authorities can then approve changes in hours if they see fit. The bill now before Parliament would enable a single authority, the Shop Trading Hours Commission, to rule on variations from the normal opening hours. The commission idea has considerable merit in that uniform considerations would apply throughout the country.

If the commission granted exemptions from normal hours, the awards for shop employees would still enable the assistants to resist work outside the

hours from 8 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. by insisting on adequate penal payments. But clearly the union leaders are not confident that they would succeed in this.

It is not inconceivable that in some areas and in some kinds of business both proprietors and employees would like a change of hours. The bill’s provisions would prevent the change unless the commission w’ere satisfied that the change would be sound on several other counts that affect the community.

The bill has its merits and the employees are not left without the power of negotiation in settling special rates for what they consider to be exceptional hours. One further amendment to the bill might sweep away much of the protest from union leaders and from many union members. This would be to narrow the spread of hours during which shops may be ordinarily open. At present the bill ordains 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. as the normal limits for opening. At the risk of giving the commission more work to determine exceptions, the main purposes of the bill would be served if the normal limits were set much closer to what are now the customary shopping hours. Both the employers and employees might reasonably press for such an amendment and the useful features of the bill would be retained without threatening what employees consider to be their best interests.