NO AGREEMENT

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 17, 14 October 1933, Page 21

NO AGREEMENT

Shop Assistants’ Award

CONCILIATION COUNCIL

Proposals made by employers for a new shop assistants’ award were discussed in the Conciliation Council yesterday. A number of clauses in the suggested award were objected to by the employees’ representatives, and after considerable argument on them the proceedings were adjourned without finality having been reached. The applicants were Kirkcaldie and Stains Ltd., James Smith Ltd., C. Smith Ltd., Patrick Drapery Stores Ltd.,' and the Drapery and General Importing Co., Ltd., all of Wellington. The Wellington Amalgamated Society of Shop Assistants objected to the claims of the applicants and submitted the existing award as a counter proposal. The proceedings were presided over by the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr.. P. Hally). The employers were represented by Messrs. T. 0. Bishop, W Slmm, H. B. Free (Palmerston North), apd S; E. S. Sheard, and the employees by Messrs. A. W. Croskery, W. A. Brown, J. Calanan, and E. Brooks. The minimum weekly rates of wages suggested by the employers were as follow : —Males: Commencing the trade under IS years of age, first year 12/6, rising by yearly increases to 67/6 in the eighth year, and 84/- thereafter; IS to 19, first year 17/6, rising to 84/in the‘eighth year; 19 to 21, 22/6, rising in the seventh year to 84/-; 21 and over, *4O/-, 60/- second year, and 84/- z thereafter. Females: Under 18, 10/-. rising in the eighth year to 42/6 and 45/- thereafter; 18 to 19, 15/-, rising in the eighth year to 45/-; 19 to 21, 20/-, rising in the seventh year to 45/-; 21 and over, 37/6, 42/6 for second year, and thereafter 45/-. Storemen and packers (other than those covered by the wholesale merchants’ storemen and packers’ award) : Under 18, 15/-, rising in the sixth year to 60/-, and thereafter 75/-; 18 to 19, 20/-, rising in the sixth year to 75/-; 19 to 21, 27/6, rising in the fifth year to 75/-; 21 and over, 40/-, second year 60/-, and thereafter 75/-; a storeman or packer in charge of two or more men other than casuals to .be paid not less than 84/- a week; a senior storeman and packer to be an employee in receipti of not less than 75/- a week. Important Differences. Mr. Bishop said that there were several important differences between the old award and the new proposals. The maximum age for youths commencing the trade and receiving 12/6 a week, for instance, was proposed to be raised from 16 to 18 years. The reason for this was that the age of youths enterjng the trade was now generally highoi than before. It was impossible to pay the same rate of wages under presentday trade conditions as those ruling two or three years ago. Tradespeople still had a big volume of. turnover, but. there was very little profit in it because the goods sold were of a cheaper grade. Proposals Attacked. “We understand as well as the employers do that times are not as buoyant a(s they have been,” said Mr. Croskery; “but that is no reason why they should come here and offer less wages than the award ordered in 1913. “This is the most disgraceful set of claims that has ever been put forward in a desire to secure cheap labour,” Mr. Croskery continued. “There are large companies that want youths of 17 years to work for them for 12/6 a week. It is hardly enough for their tram fares. .We met these people last time to try to assist them over the difficulties that were cropping up in New Zealand at the time, and we made the wages in my opinion very reasonable. But I cannot say that they are meeting us now on a fair basis at all.” “It is only natural that Mr. Croskery should describe the proposals in the harshest possible terms, but we are inclined not to look at them in that way,” said Mr. Bishop. “We will be quite frank .about it. He says we are trying to get cheap labour. Of course we are, because cheap labour is the only kind we can afford. The new claims arje put forward simply because the necessities of the position requite them. When Mr. Croskery criticises them, saying they compare unfavourably with those ruling In 1913, I would remind him of the very different economic conditions applying now.”’

Arbitration Court Mentioned.

“I want to know if there is any prospect of discussing these problems with any possibility of success,” said the Commissioner. ,

Mr. Croskery: “We don’t want to throw the whole thing out, but we want some of these ’ clauses reconsidered. If there is any doubt we can surely agree to sending the question to the Arbitration Court and stand by its decision.” Mr. Bishop: “The feeling among employers to-day is that they cannot take the risk of having their businesses trusted to a court that may have no full knowledge of the trade. In the past they have done it, but conditions are different now. The employers do not like taking their troubles to the court. “As a man I have the utmost respect for the Judse of the Arbitration Court, but as an institution I have never respected it. I have said this many times before. It does not stand the test of hard times; and the whole system was built up on an ever-rising tide of prosperity.” The meeting was adjourned to November 9.