GROCERS' AWARD

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 44, 20 August 1938, Page 13

GROCERS' AWARD

UNION'S CRITICISM

THE HOURS CLAUSES

A criticism of the recent Dominion award for grocers' assistants is made by Mr. W. H. Coombe (secretary of the Wellington Amalgamated Society of Shop Assistants). "The members and officers of the unions of employees are entirely in agreement with the employers regarding clauses in this award which are of no benefit to either side," he states. "The most contentious clause is that dealing with hours of work, and we. are with the employers' representative when he states that the award is in direct conflict with the evidence submitted at the hearing." The Court, he said, had seen fit to put in the word "between the hours" of 8.15 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. on four days; 8.15 a.m. and 9 p.m. on the late night; and 8.15 a.m. and noon on the day of the half-holiday, and had nullified the practicability of the clause by adding "that the work be continuous, and that only 7g hours be worked on 4 days, 9£ hours on the late night, and 3^ hours on the halfholiday." "We submit that the Court should make its decision on the evidence submitted, and we state that the evidence was definitely in favour of fixed hours of opening and closing of shops, both on the employers' and the union's claim," said Mr. Coombe. UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. "No definite time has been stated when the shop shall close, but only when the employees shall cease work, therefore the Court has definitely given an unfair advantage to the small grocer who does not employ staff over those shops that do. As we are concerned in seeing that our members receive employment, we consider that this is not an equitable basis of trading, and is not justice as we associate it with a court of Taw." • Mr. Coombe said that the Judge in his memorandum said that all mem,f rs,°, f ,the Court recognised that there should be uniformity in regard to the proportion of seniors and juniors, yet an award had been framed that contained nine different proportion clauses. ;Tn regard to wages, the. union submits that on the evidence and the amounts offered by the employers to managers both in Auckland and Gisborne, the difference of 10s in the award is not svificient," added Mr. Coombe "We also agree with the employers regarding the delay in the issuing of the awards, and contend it is not fair to either side that they should have to wait so long for the finalising of awards. "Regarding the retrospective payment, we contend that we are xully entitled to this, but we do protest on behalf,of our fellow shop assistants in other trades,, whose claims for an award were heard before ours, having to wait still owing to the Court giving precedence to our award. We submit that the awards should be issued in the order they are heard. These assistants have been deprived of back money which throughout the Dominion will run into many thousands of pounds. "Further, we protest emphatically at the Court granting only one week's holiday to assistants; whereas in other awards it has granted. a fortnight's holiday, as in the Clerical Workers' award, and we fail to see that a clerk's work is more arduous than a shop assistant's. "Again, there-were many legitimate claims advanced by the workers about which the Court has made no pronouncement, such as extra money for drivers of heavy trucks, contracting boy labour, agreements" forced upon branch managers, '. and many minor ones. "The unions desired the Court to make provision as follows:—'No agreement shall bei valid which is or may be contrary to the provisions of the award, and no worker shall contract himself outside the said award. This was supported by, the employers, but has been disregarded by the Court."