GROCERY DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 285, 29 August 1935, Page 11

GROCERY DISPUTE

Chain Stores Critical of Other Shops

“TRIANGULAR QUARREL”

Decision was reserved on the proceedings described as “tins triangular quarrel,” involving the family grocers, the chain store grocers and the employees, by the Arbitration Court yesterday after listening all day to evidence and argument concerning the trade in the industrial district of Wellington. An application for a new award involved the Wellington Grocers’ Industrial Union qt Employers, the Wellington Grocers Assistants’ Industrial Union of ’Workers, and the Wellington Retail Grocery Shop Managel's’ Industrial Union of Workers and the Chain Grocery Store Industrial Union of Employers. Mr. Justice Page presided. With him were Mr. AV. Cecil Prime and Mr. A. L. Monteith, assessor for the employers and the employees respectively. The case vias partly heard about a fortnight ago. Mr. AV. J. Mountjoy, who appeared for the Chain Grocery Stores Union, said lus organisation covered 140 shops employing 400 assistants, incorporating Community Stores Ltd., Dilloway s Cash Stores Ltd,, Hill Bros. Ltd., Humphries Cash Groceries Ltd., the Self-Help Co-op. Ltd., Star Stores Ltd., Watson Bros, and Yates Cash Stores. The proceedings for the new award were unusual in that the workers and a section of the employers were in union in an effort to harass and retard the chain stores. “The applicants want to regulate their competitors in a way to suit themselves, so that they .may have an advantage over them,” he said. Ever since the inception of the chain stores there has been a strong feeling of dislike by the smaller grocers, who have taken every step they have thought of to try to break their rivals.” All the proposed alterations in the award were designed not to alter conditions for the applicants but to harm their rivals. The chain stores had been “off-aide” right through the proceedings, being allowed only one assessor in conciliation, with seven in opposition. Ihe applicants asked for conditions not included in any other grocery award. The court should not be misled by the motives of envious trade competitors. The chain stores had not asked for reductions in the wages of workers, but had submitted fair and reasonable proposalg which would be not less advantageous to the workers than the provisions of the existing awards. Country Conditions. The profit-earning capacity of the chain stores had ' not increased since the last award, which tliould be renewed, except that special provision should be made for country grocers, like those of Hawke s Bay. It was urged that where there. were two statutory full holidays in a week it should not be necessary to close on the usual half-holiday in the country. It was contended that wages should not be lowed to suit the desires of unsympathetic rivals. Wages for branch managers had been fixed four years ago, when the cost of living was higher. Men in charge of travelling shops were ordinary assistants, according to the evidence, and should not receive greater wages. If the proposals of the workers and the applicants regarding the proportion of youths and juniors were enforced several workers would have to be dismissed and others would not be employed in their places. Underlying the claims of the applicants was a desire to prevent others having something they did not want for themselves. The Hawke’s Bay grocers suggested that assistants in the crockery or sweet departments should be able to serve a customer in the grocery department at rush times when regular assistants were absent, such as in the lunch hour. Sunday work should be allowed in country districts to permit of stocktaking on that day, though there was not the same need in shops in or near Wellington. The claim for uniforms, in the form of white coats, was opposed. Butchers and other tradesmen wore white coats or overalls or aprons for the protection of their clothes and did not receive a special payment.

“Neither the applicant union nor the respondent union has established the need for any alterations to the present award, and, as the present award was made, by the court following exhaustive evidence, and unless it has been shown that there is substantial need for any alterations, the court should renew the present award with the necessary alteration to overcome the unfortunate position that is created in towns and districts where the statutory half-holiday is observed on a day other than Saturday,” he said. Contentions of Workers. Mr. A. AV. Croskery, for the Wellington Grocers Assistants Union, opposed the proposals that workers should lose their regular half-holiday in weeks in which there were other statutory holidays. Butchers, for instance, could have as many holidays as they liked in a week, but the assistants still had the right to their balfholiday, except where one of the full holidays covered the usual half-holiday. The award for shop assistants retained the half holiday except for specified weeks. The Canterbury grocery award also preserved the half holiday. The chain store proprietors were asking that a provision be made in the award that wan not included in other awards made by agreement with employers. Tlie union desired to reduce the number of years prescribed for qualification as a grocer’s assistant. Tlie proposal of the

workers would reduced period of apprenticeship that was far too long and increase a rate of wages which was far too low. In 1910 youths in one classification received £l, whereas it was now proposed that they be paid £l/0/6, putting them back from the £l/2/6 paid in 1919. The rates proposed for youths in grocery shops were less than those paid in other establishments such as butchers’ ehops. Victorian and New South Wales rates were approximately twice as high. Discussing the proportion clauses, lie said hundreds of competent and experienced tradesmen were walking the streets out of work because there were too. many youths employed in industry. This was particularly applicable to the grocery business. and the court should tighten up the regulations governing the proportion of youths and juniors to seniors. He hoped the court would not sanction the employment of women in grocery shops. Immediately a girl employed on n confectionery counter was allowed to serve behind the grocery counter an inspector would have to sit on the door step to keep control so that there would not be unrestricted cheap female labour. Mr. M. J. Reardon, for the Wellington Grocers Union of Employers, advocated control of branch managers. The elasticity of a previous award had allowed the chain store companies to abuse the laws of the land, for witnesses hadproved that it was a general practice to work branch managers at night, on Saturdays and on Sundays. Mr. Prime commented that it could not fairly be said that this was proved to be a general practice. Mr. Reardon said a remarkable feature of the dispute was that everybody seemed to be out of step except the chain stores', according to the representations made to the court. The truth was that efforts by the master grocers to secure co-opera-tion from the chain stores had failed. The master grocers had to take action in seltdefence to prevent unbridled competition. He could not admit that the time was opportune for an increase in wages, as sought by the workers. The question was reallv one for decision by the court. The trade generally did not wish to see women employed in grocery shops. He could sec no reason why the master grocers of Hawke’s Bay should receive a concession not given in Wellington. His Honour remarked that the comments about the attitude of the chain stores to overtures for co-operation would have been better left unsaid. Length}’ evidence was given by Mr. B. Sutherland, founder and managing director of the Self-Help Co-op. Ltd.