SHOP HOURS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 120, 25 May 1925, Page 9

SHOP HOURS

THE CLOSING QUESTION

IMPORTANT ARBITRATION COURT DECISION

THE SMALL SHOP DIFFICULT V 7,

Following the fiiing of the Dunedin award in the grocers' assistants and drivers' award, eighty-nine applications for exemptions were made,, wholly owing to the-closing hours' clauses. In the award the hours were the same as those agreed upon by the parties in Conciliation Council. In view of the position of many shopkeepers and numerous applications, the Court issued with its decision granting only two of the exemptions a very long memorandum. The two shops granted exemption were outside the city and suburban area. In all the. cases refused the Court was of opinion that the principal business carried on was that of grocer. Iv cities and towns it had been the practice of the Court, stated tho Judge's note, to refuse exemptions to grocers, because of the natures of the competition in this trade. It was impossible to grant exemption to the grocer without assistants except at the cost of inflicting a hardship on small grocers who employed one or" two assistants. -" We. have freely granted exemptions to small suburban drapers, clothiers, and outfitters, because the granting of aii extra half-hour or hour enables them to retain the trade of suburban residents living in their vicinity, who are employed during the day in the city. Groceries, however, can be obtained during tho day by the wives of these suburban residents, just as they have to be obtained by the wives of city residents, and the small suburban grocery shop can retain their own trade without requiring to have extended hours of trading." Tho Court went on to refer to tho difficulty of defining exactly what' ,1 grocer's business was in New Zealand, and said the definition of the Act as to a man's principal business had been accepted for classification. ACTION AGAINST OPEN SHOPS. Under the heading, " General," the Court's memorandum states, inter alia: -'- It is impossible to administer the provisions of tho Shops and Offices Act in regard to closing hours and exemptions without inflicting some degree of hardship on one class or another of shopkeepers. Wo have given full and sympathetic consideration to the occupiers of small shops in which a combined grocery, fruit, and confectionery business is carried on, and have in many cases given the benefit of a doubt to occupiers whom we have grouped under heading (ti) (confectionery and fruit). This, however,, will cause'hardship to small shopkeepers in their vicinity, whose principal business is the sale of groceries, to whom, however, we cannot grant exemption from the closing hours' provisions oE the award, except at the cost of- innictih" hardship on somewhat larger (though still small) grocers in their vidhitv, who employ a few assistants, and who mu4 perforce close at the hours fixed by the award. Pending any amendment of tinAct, the only suggestion-we can offer 'lo ■' shopkeepers who are prejudicially affected by. other shopkeepers selling thuir wares after their own shops are ivqr-iml to be closed, is that they.should make use of the provisions of section 33 of tl'p Shops and Offices Act, 1921-22. That section provides that a majority of tho occupiers of all shops in any pnrti.-•!;,;• trade withiu the district-of any "liir.i'l authority may nt any time, by pnliti'-n----in writ-ing, apply to the Miifecr <,f Labour to prohibit tho sale in smh district of all the goods tho sulc or which is comprised in such trade, during such lime as the shops in such trade 'are required to be closed in pursuance of Un> Act or of any award. The Minister may thereupon specify tho goods which in his opinion should not be sold after tha_ regular closing hours, and prohibit their sale by any shopkeeper. SMALL, SHOP QUESTION. " This Court does not, as a rule, grant exemptions to shopkeepers in cities or towns, ■ except in the case of suburban applicants who can show that tho circumstances of their businesses are unusual. We are oi the opinion that a multiplicity of small shops, in close proximity to oner another, that are able to make a living—and a meagre living at that—only because they can take advantage of being able to observe unrestricted hours when somewhat larger shops in their vicinity have to close at specified 'hours, is not in the public interest. The public is generally not so well served by the very small shop, with its' small range of stock and its high ratio of rent to turnover, as by the larger shop; and the effect of unfair competition, is to prevent the establishment and growth ol larger_ businesses, and to bring about ar, artificial increase in shop rents, and, correspondingly, prices. We do not wish_ it to .be thought that it is our opinion that the small shopkeepers, many . of whom are unable to earn a living in any other way, should be denied the right to exist, and we do not wish to place obstacles in the way of persons "who aro desirous of owning businesses of their own. but we stress the point that tlioj should not bs given an unfair advantage over their competitors. They are entitled only lo such special relaxation of restrictions as may be necessary to enable them to retain their own local trade."