ASSISTANTS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 25, 30 January 1924, Page 8

ASSISTANTS

DOMINION AWARD QUESTION

CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS,

A hearing of the Dominion dispute concerning shop assistants was commenced this mcrniiig in Wellingten, before-a Dominien Cpnciliaticn Council, Mr. W. Newton presiding. . The assessors were: Empleyers, Messrs. T.- Forsyth (Wellingten), W. E. Lane (Dunedin),;A. W. Mathesen (Levin), J. E. Kendall (Auckland), Ai Robinspn .(Nelspn), and 8..-L. Hammond (Wellingten); unien, Messrs. .'A. W. Creskery (Wellingtpn), W. W. Batchelcr (Dunedin), J. J. O'Connpr (Invercargill), P. E. Jenes (Nelson), H. J. Mortenson (Auckland), and A. L. Monteith (Wellingten). , Mr. Newton explained that the dis,pute was to., cover "th« Dominion, 'excepting the '.Canterbury industrial £_btrict. The position was that some months ago the employers had cited a number of ..unions, .but?the; unions had !-ir.t.inated''tHat a'^Dbminipn'awa'rd WdtUd be applied for and the ether claims had been held ever fpr. tbiy application,, which was the one'te be censidered new. : At_ the ; ,.opening of ,..th.e. proceedings, Mr. Creskery- said ■ there had beevT'.ertain happenings in Christchurch, where there had been a; complete agreement, that he hoped would: not be considered in this discussion. • Fortunately, th» Ceurt had added a memorandum stating that this award was net to be considered as a precedent in ether disputes. The award had included certain conditions, which were not acceptable to assessors present to-day. Mr.. Hammond said that a. far as Christchurch was concerned, the employers did not intend to use the award. They were, hewever, beund by it to a certain extent. He had net been in favour pf gping ahead with any lecal award, but it had been forced on him. As far as he could see, the Conciliation -Councils were becoming mere bargaining sittings. He did not think that!in. this case the worker's were sufficiently 'optimistic- to'get what they demanded. If they were they* were as optimistic, as' the prisoner who hung hie sock outside his cell dopr Pn Christmas Eve. The claims on the main headings were as follpw:—Wages from' first year to .fifth year, £1 10s te £4 5s fi* males >and £1 5s to £3 15s fer females; after five years, £5 10s (males only); for travellers, £5 10s up to £8 10s for branch managers in charge of three or mere assistants; wages for storemen to range from £115s to £3 155., The hours of emplpyment asked fer were: Senidrs, 9 a.m. to ; s p.m. on five days, one hour for lunch, and 9 i__i. to 12 a.m. on'the other day; juniors to commence at 8.45 j a.m., and apprentices, storemen, etc., to start at 8.30 a.m. The employers suggested the following wages from, first year to "fifth year: 17s 6d to £3 os for males, and £4. 0s 6d thereafter, and 15s to £1 16s 6d for females, and £2 Is 6d thereafter. No special provisions were made concerning travellers or branch managers. Wages for storemen were ranged from£l 2s 6d up.to £2 17s 6d, with £4 5s for store-, men or packers in charge of two or more men, and £3 15s for other adult packers or storemen. The employers asked, for hours as governed by the Shops and Offices Act. The morning was spent in a discussion of the classification of workers. The empleyers objected to prbvisien fpr overtime for departmental managers, holding that such managers. were in a position te create their ewn pvertime.' This weuld place the managers in an invidious pcsition if payment was insisted en. (Proceeding.).