SHOP HOURS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 118, 22 May 1925, Page 7

SHOP HOURS

DID THE COURT BLUNDER ?

MINISTER ADHERES TO HIS

OPINION

DEPUTATION FROM ASSISTANTS,

The controversy over the closing hour of drapers' shops on the late night of the: week was advanced a further .stage last night, when a deputation from the New Zealand Shop Assistants/Federation waited on the Minister, of Labour (the Hon. G. J. Anderson) to put a contrary view to that placed before the Minister by the drapery and sillied trade employers on sth :May. During the interview, Mr. A. W. Croskery, secretary of .the Assistants' Federation, said his federation took exception to the Minister's reported statement that the Arbitration Court had blundered in so far as the fixing of the closing hour on the late night was concerned. The Minister adhered to his contention, and reiterated it, emphasising that.it was because he was concerned about the position of the small shopkeepers that he had said what h<3 did.

Mr. A.- L. Mpnteith, M.P., who introduced the deputation, said the Court had desired to.shorten the hours in the drapery 4>rade, in which 60 per cent, of the workers were women, but its will had been defeated through the employers in Wellington deciding to . open their shops at 8.30 a.m. instead of ■ 9 a.m. as formerly. Ten hours a day was too long to ask women to work on the day of the late hour of closing.

LATE NIGHTS AT CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAB. "In the.-first place we want to say quite frankly," stated Mr. A. W. Croskery, secretary of-the federation, "that we are absolutely/ opposed to a return to the two late shopping nights at Christmas and. New. Year." Only one late night hail been allowed since the Shops and Offices Amendment Act of 1920, introduced by ■ the late Sir William Herries, had been passed, and no complaint had been, made by the employers until the new award came , into operation. Since then), the employers had been condemning both'the, Shops and Offices Act and the Arbitration Court, in an attempt to frighten the Legislature, and the Court. Despite the employers' efforts in attempting to. block the abolition of the two late nights in Christmas and New Year weeks, the Labour Bills Committee of the Bouse of Eepresentatives had agreed that the reform was a just one, and the • federation was pleased that Mr, Anderson had adhered to it. The present award compelled the employers to pay their assistants overtime for all time worked' after 8.30 p.m., but sooner than do that, in nearly every case, the employers, rather than keep open until 10 p.m., as the Act allowed them to do, and pay overtime, closed at 8.30 p.m. on New Year's Eve. That did not appear as if New Year's Evo was such a good shopping, night, as the employers asked the' Minister to believe.

On .the question of the half-holiday on the day "of the General Election, to which the- employers had taken exception, Mr.- Croskery aaid it was childish to suggest . that ' trade would-be done by the shops on that day. • If the workers were only to be allowed sufficient time off in .which to record their votes, how many of those living many miles from town would be able to vote? All hotels were compelled to observe a halfday on election day, otherwise . many people would be debarred from voting.

PINPRIOKING ALLEGED Discussing the award, Mr. Croskery refuted the assertion made by Mr. T. Forgyth at the employers' interview with the Minister thnt the Court was. not asked to' depart from the hours, and that the hours question had not been discussed. The. union, indeed, had asked that the late night be cut out altogether, and had also requested the Court to fix the' hour of starting in the morning. Medical evidence was brought to show that ten hours a day was too long to ask a woman to work. The employers' agent had strenuously resisted the union's claims in connection with hours. Notwithstanding what Mr. Forsyth had'said to the contrary, the Cjourt had often departed from the Shops ,and Offices Act and fixed' the hours of. "work and . closing in awards governing the shop trades. The employers had been guilty of pinpricking, and had increased the workers' weekly hours' by 2-i per week because they refused' to accede to the employers' wishes in the matter .of the late night. • They had also inflicted a ten-hour day on their women assistants. One firm in Wellington which' had introduced a late night, a thing it had not been accustomed to for some years past, had subsequently cut it out, and, in addition, had reverted to starting at 9 a.m. instead of 8.30. By doing this the firm had reduced its workers' hours by five per week, and the very best thanks of the employees' federation were due to it for its action. .. • ! ,

The Auckland employers, continued Mr. Croskery, had refused to follow the example -get. by the Wellington employers in regard, to the earlier time of starting in. the jnprning, and had stated that they did .not consider what the Wellington employees.were doing was fair to the assistants.. Although Palniarstoii korth had reestablished the late night other parts of the Dominion had absolutely refused to be parties to the demands of the Master Drapers' Association. . All. the 'employers were not in favour of a- reversion to 9 o'clock closing on the late nig]it, and a number had told him that they preferred the 830 hour to stand., What the union wanted was the protection of the Government against those people who had been pinpnckipg ,for twelve months.

MINISTER TAKEN TO TASK. "Now, sir," said Mr. Croskery, " we come to the part where you are reported j° h/ ve T ,,sti >'ted thafc "is Court'bluii. dered. We have endeavoured to analyse this matter as fairly as possible in an endeavour to find out where this blunder that you- mention took place, but have been unable to do so. In 'the first place, section 69 of the Shops and Offices Act provides that the Court shall have power to fix the weekly or daily number of hours of employment of workers, and it also shall nave power to fix the hours of closing of shops; and ns far as we can see that is all that the Court has done. As a matter of fact, it has by no means-gone, as far as the Act allows it to do, nor lias it gone as far as the unions asked it 10 do. If you were referring to the question of ■ exemptions under the.Act, that is entirely a different matter, but I want to remind you that in nil cases for exemption the largo employers who are invariably represented before the Court have nearly always opposed exemptions when they have been asked for by the small shopkeeper and as a result the Court must be "uided by the evidence submitted to it otherwise it would not be a Court of justice whatever. We regret very much that you, sir, as a Minister of the Crown, and as Minister in Charge of the Department under which the Arbitraii?a fioiwt |uact:jos« 2 ' should Jave. meds

a statement to the effect that one of our judicial tribunals had blundered, and we must say that we think the remark quite uncalled for."

In reply, the Minister stated that the Court's award would have to stand unless both parties agreed to a variation. That was the position, and he was not going to discuss it any further. So far as his remarks-concerning the Court were concerned, he repeated that it had blundered in fixing the closing hour on the late night at half past 8, which was too early to suit the convenience of working people who had to get home from work, have their meals, change, and then return to town to shop. The Court had blundered to that extent, but it was only a human institution, and therefore liable to make mistakes the same as anyone else. He thought the Courtcould quite well have retained 9 o'clock closing, and reduced hours otherwise, | but it had not seen fit to do that. The award stood unless the parties agreed to an alteration. Mr. Monteith: " You would not suggest ten hours a day for females THE PUBLIC CAN JUDGE. The Minister: "I am not going to suggest, anything. Whether it is good or bad, the public can say." He believed that 9 o'clock closing on the late night was reasonable, and that was why he had put a provision to that effect into the Shops and Offices Act, which had been, very carefully thought out. In this connection he -wished it to be distinctly understood that the people about whom he was mostly concerned were the small shopkeepers—those in the suburbs. Half an hour did not make a great difference to the man or firm in a big way of business, but it seriously affected the small shop- i keeper. That was why he thought the Court had blundered in fixing the closing hour on the late night at 8.30.