Late shopping rules to change?

Press, 24 February 1987, Page 7

Late shopping rules to change?

Controls on late night shopping could be removed by a test case argued before the Arbitration Court in Christchurch yesterday.

The action was brought by the Shop Employees’ Union against Fletcher Merchants, Ltd. The union contended that Fletcher was in breach of the Retail (Non-Food) Award by opening its Placemakers Riccarton store from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. five days a week.

The union (Mr A. A. Couch) told the Court that it was not in dispute that Placemakers had kept those hours since December 1, 1986. But while the Shop Trading Hours Act allowed a shop to set any hours it liked, the award prevented it from employing staff on more than one late night a week. Mr Couch said that a clause in the award defined “core hours” as 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days a week, or 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. four days and 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on the fifth day.

He said that the crux of the argument was another clause which began, “For the purpose of trading, staff may be employed on one day of the week up to 9 p.m.” That meant one and only one, and that interpretation was upheld in previous Arbitration Court decisions dealing with essentially identical clauses in the Retail Grocery and Supermarket Award, he said. The award contained provisos allowing two late nights a week in the three weeks before New Year, and dealt with pay rates on the extra late nights. Mr Couch contended that

that reinforced his interpretation that nominally only one was allowed. “Otherwise, what would be the point of inserting a proviso allowing two?” he said.

Mr R. L. Fisher, Q.C., for the defendant company, replied that it was "of critical importance that the opportunity for extended hours given by the Shop Trading Hours Act should not be taken away by an award.”

He contended that the Court should not intervene in Placemakers’ trading practices unless it found “clear and compelling language” prohibiting them. However, the clause on which the plaintiff based its case was “permissive, not prohibitive.” It allowed shops to employ staff one day a week up to 9 p.m., but it did not follow that that prohibited them from doing so on other nights, he said. What the plaintiff contended were “core hours” of work did not preclude further work but represented a “threshhold for overtime,” said Mr Fisher. He said that the union’s preferred interpretation would prevent counter staff working more than one late night a week, while allowing other Placemakers’ staff, such as those employed under the Timber Workers’ Award, to work more than one. Mr Fisher said that the award should be interpreted in its historical context.

The 1977 . award, for example, definitely prohibited shops from opening more than one late night

a week, but such prohibitory language was missing from the current award. Mr Fisher said that Parliament had lifted restrictions on trading hours, leaving only the more narrow question of working hours to be decided between the employers and employees.

The award was to be interpreted as protecting individual workers from having to work more than one late night a week, not prohibiting shops from opening more than one night a week, he said.

Placemakers had been operating the same hours at the Takapuna branch for 13 months without complaint, he said. The Court, comprising Chief Judge Horn, Messrs T. Weir and W. Cameron, reserved its decision.