Shops closed by ‘lunchroom’ bill?

Press, 8 February 1980, Page 1

Shops closed by ‘lunchroom’ bill?

Many shops and offices could be forced to close if the Factory and Commercial Premises Bill were enforced, the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce council was told yesterday. Council members attacked provisions of the legislation, now before Parliament’s Labour select committee, requiring factories, shops, and offices to have lunchrooms large enough to accommodate all employees.

Such a broad requirement was unreasonable because many employees did not use such facilities where they were already provided, said Mr D. J. Stock.

The extra cost of providing lunchrooms of the required size would have

to be passed on to consumers, he said. "I think we will find unions will start to enforce provisions of the act, forcing employers to provide lunchrooms when they may not be economically feasible,” said Mr Stock. Mr A. G. Williams said that in many cases it would be impossible to provide the 1 facilities. “If enforced this coujd make a lot, of shops and offices close.” Dozens of offices in Christchurch were just “two or three rooms” and it was “totally ludicrous” to say they should have lunchrooms, said Mr J. M. T. Greene.

“If you take it to its logical conclusion the only way to provide extra room is to get rid of some staff," he said.

Mr C. W. Ballantyne said his retail store employed about 340 staff and provided seating for only about 70 at any time. This had been “quite adequate for a good long time.” Mr Ballantyne said it was probably not unreasonable to expect that some lunch facilities be provided, "but let us not deviate from what has been satisfactory in the past.” Mr H. A. L. Wily said the lunchroom requirement was only part of a “large, rather festering sort of problem.” Good, ideas for social improvement were “picked up and dealt with in a bureaucratic way,” with the end result of costs increasing to the benefit of no-one, said Mr Wily.