GROCERS' DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 38, 13 August 1935, Page 11

GROCERS' DISPUTE

■v ■&*•**--"*■

NEW c AWARD ;;

BHGFH

5 "TRIANGULAR DUEL" S

EMPLOYEES' CASE

An application was made to the Arbitration Court today by the Wellington Master t Grocers', Union of Employers for a new industrial award. ."i.

t Mr. Justice Page presided, and with him were associated Mr. W. Cecil Prime (employers' assessor) and Mr. A. Li. Monteith (employees' assessor).

j v Mr.' M.J. Eeardon appeared for the t Wellington master grocers, and Mr. A. 1 W. Croskery'for the two respondent : unions, the Wellington Grocers' Assist- - ants' f Union and the Wellington Retail I Grocers'. Shop Managers' Unjon. > l >- Prior to ' the opening of the case, Mr. Justice Page said: "The Court has I given consideration to the preliminary 1 .^objectionsraised by Mr. Mountjoy on 1 behalf of these whom he represented. : It is quite clear to the Court that sec- •' tionMoß-of the statute is mandatory. ! and that until that has been complied 1 with there is no foundation on which Ito base a claim. -If ..that section-is not I complied-withAthere is no valid dispute that can be submitted to the Con- " ciliationg: Council or the Court. -The " question,', however, •* of *.• procedure by ■ which a matter:is brought before the 1 Conciliation Council or the Court is lon a. different basis. The forms are " always capable of > amendment. The ! objections; taken in the present case 1 are three'm~ number. Mr. Mountjoy objected that form 5a was not complete; that no copy of the rules had ' been filed; and that no chairman's cer- ' tificale had been filed. Only one of ' these matters was affirmatively proved ; before the Court yesterday. In the view of the Court that does not come | .to the root of the jurisdiction of the r Court; and it is a matter for amendj me'nt, if amendment be necessary, that there is a wide power given to the Court to amend any defects or errors , with the view of bringing any substan- ; tial question before the Court. Our i opinion, therefore, is that, section 108 ' of the statute having been complied i with, the minor variation in form 5a , does not prevent the Conciliation Couri- ' cil proceeding with the matter, or the Court proceeding with the matter. We think, therefore, these proceedings are regular, and will have to be continued." MASTER- GROCERS' CLAIMS. • In opening the case for the Wellington master grocers, Mr. Reardon said • it was an application for a new award 1 to take the place of the existing award, • which was made in 1933 and expired •in March, 1935. "Action was taken by ' the Master Grocers' Union of Employ- ! ers early in the present year, mainly 1 to ensure that an award would be ! made and made, in the main, on the ' terms' of the award now in operation," ;'■ said Mr. Reardon. "More particularly : should I say that the master grocers' ■ wanted an award in the form of that 1 made by the Court in 1933. May I say that the year 1933 was notable in | the grocery trade because of the series ;of conflicts in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin, in this ' and in other Courts. These conflicts [ arose out of a new set of circum- ' stances. The development of chain ' store organisations was' having a marked effect on. the old-established grocery trade, and the master, grocers were exploring every avenue in .an attempt to meet this -competition. It was then that it became apparent that the employment of boy labour was a factor working to the detriment of oldestablished grocers. Having made this discovery, the employers were forced to approach the Court of Arbitration and seek industrial conditions that would put some restraint on the em- ; ployment of boys and youths, while i the whole community was faced with | the problem of unemployment among . the adult population, and also there was the question of unfair trading com--1 petition. : ... .- L - "When these grocery trades disputes came before the Court in 1933, there were three main parties to the pro- ■ ceedings. The old-fashioned family L grocer was ; represented by the Master Grocers' Union of Employers. The em--1 ployees.were organised and registered, 1 and the third group were representa- : tives of stores. Today the three parties are again before the Court, but in the • meantime new factors seem to haye 1 been operating, as .the dissenting parties : have grown in number. There is a • uniori of shop managers, duly register--1 ed, and represented. s> The chain stores have built up some sort of an organi--1 sation probably registered too, 'and there are some grocers from Wanganui ; and Napier who want" a little industrial ; scheme : of their own. . "The list;of parties contains.over 700 names, so that we may begin by assum- ; ing that there are about,that number in business on their own account in the ' Wellington industrial" district. An ex- ( tended report of the proceedings when the grocers' dispute?was before the , Court in > 1933,. is available, and if I [ quote from that, report. it will -be for the' purpose of shortening the case ; where possible. We had on that occasion a return showing the number of persons employed, members of the union, in both town and country. Tho ! number employed in chain stores were: ,In town, 165;-in country, 169; total of 334. The numbers employed in other stores were:—ln town, 315; in country 336; a total of 651. It was claimed that . the chain stores' organisations, some , ten in number, had 140 shops in the in- . dustrial district, and employed approxir mately : 400 assistants. •.» It may be taken for granted that'these figures have not changed to any great extent m the meantime. Here, then, are the three principal parties in this triangle: —About 700 grocers, some of them.not employing adult labour; ten companies with 140 shops and about 400 assistants; about 980 workers." Mr. Reardon then dealt at some length with the terms of the proposed ■ new award. He said the employers agreed'to 8.15 being the starting time ,of work. That was the practice at present. The main provisions in regard to holidays had. been agreed to. ; As to overtime, the dispute, was not between the applicant employers and the ; .workers, but between the chain store . groups and the others. \ ■ .' As to wages, the workers' union ask- : ed for an increase, of 10 per cent.— practically a restoration of the cuts. The employers felt that they should not go ahead of other people in that direction. The state of the grocery trade would not allow of that concession being granted. The position of branch managers was, of course, a bono of contention between all parties. When the * employers commenced these proceedings, said Mr. Reardon. they asked the workers to agree to an award based on the existing award; and, in the main,.the employers followed the.terms of that award. The employers felt that a very exhaustive examination of the trade had been made from Auckland to Dunedin, and that that' was the studied opinion of the Court as to what terms and conditions were suitable for the trade. They had endeavoured to keep as closely as ' they possibly could to the decision then ■ arrived.at, in the hope that this apparently triangular quarrel might come 1 to an end.

The master grocers were really tired 'of the whole worry and litigation that

had arisen during the last few years, and would • welcome a new award based.' substantially on;ithe award which the Court made two years ago. Mr. Reardon, after . referring >to a number of provisions of the proposed award, said he would only call • one witness. •? MASTER GROCER'S EVIDENCE. T; Henry -War dell, grocer, * Wellington, said he had been in business for forty years. He had also been interested in the grocery business in Christchurch and Dunedin. .-- He gave evidence in 1933 in regard to the proportion of seniors and juniors. He then had 23 adult employees, one at £6 15s; one at £6 10s; three at £4 15s; two at £4 10s; and sixteen at £4 5s Gd. "For many years I have never employed I the number of youths I was entitled to I ! employ," he said. Mr. Reardon: Is it safe to say that you have never had your whole staff on the minimum rate?— Not the whole I staff. When you were before the Court I two years ago, you said you might be forced to make reductions because of | chain store competition?— One shop was started which I regarded as hav-s ing engaged in rather wild compati-j tion. I made certain reductions in I wages, but I said that if I could restore the wages at the end of the year I would do so, and also pay their back pay. I carried out that promise, j Mr. Prime: You were able to rein-1 state the men and their wages?— Yes; there was no reduction.

Mr. Reardon: You supported the proposal of the union two years ago that the proportion of youths should be one in three or fraction of the first three, not because you wanted to avail yourself of the clause, but you saw that the chain-store trade was hampering the old-established grocery businesses 7 —Yes.

And you are still of opinion that the I request of the employers at that time was fair and reasonable to the trade, and was in the best interests of the community generally?— Certainly. In reply to further questions, witness said that he believed it was better for the community to employ men in, preference to boys. He did not think that anybody could gainsay that. The majority of his employees were trained by himself. When theyreached the age-of twenty-one or finished their apprenticeship' he had never made it a practice to replace them by youths. He still held the opinion he expressed two years ago in regard to the proportion of youths to adults.

In reply to Mr. Mountjoy, witness said he considered the present award rates fair.

(Proceeding.)