HOURS OF SHOPS

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 53, 30 August 1940, Page 6

HOURS OF SHOPS

CLAUSE IN BILL

VIGOROUS ATTACK

LABOUR MEMBER JOINS IN

PROVISION WITHDRAWN

A clause in the Statutes Amendment Bill giving the Court of Arbitration power to fix the opening and closing hours of shops'on any working day in any award relating to the employment of shop assistants provoked considerable criticism from members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives Jate last night and early this morning. One of the Government members, Mr. F. W. Schramm (Auckland East) joined in the attack on the clause, which, it. was contended, made it possible to interfere with the weekly halfholiday. Eventually, at the Prime Minister's suggestion, the clause was withdrawn with a view lo its reintroduclion later in a Shops and Offices Amendment Bill.

Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (National, Egmont) asked 'whether the intention was to do away with the late shopping night, and who had requested the clause. He doubted whether a single shopkeeper in the country knew a word about it.

In the Committee stage, the Hon. W. E. Barnard (Democratic Labour, Napier) inquired whether, under' the clause, the Court would have power to prevent stores being keptjopen on Saturday morning. If there was Any such power he thought the question should be -openly discussed; it should not be a matter left really to the Court's discretion. CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC. Mr. Barnard mentioned the convenience of the public. In section 17 of the 1927 Amendment Act, which tlie clause repealed, there were some significant words. One of the things the Court had to pay regard to was the convenience of the public in the district, and he wanted to know whether that consideration, as the result of the repeal, would be lost sight of by the Court.

Although he was making no charge against any particular Judge, the practice seemed to have developed of the Court feeling that, if an arrangement was made that was fair and reasionaMe as between employers and employees, the whole job was done. Consequently the House frequently found itself in difficulties because the interest of the consuming public was not always safeguarded. He wondered whether the words "having regard to the convenience of the public" had been dropped , for any particular reason. ; Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said he was a little alarmed at the omission of the words. After all, the consuming public was worthy of consideration. . A JOINT REQUEST. The Minister of Labour (the Hon. P. C. Webb) said his information was that a very large section of the shopkeepers in- the different towns had joined with the employees in making a request to the Government that a clause of this nature should be inserted in the law. The clause merely reinstated power that previously existed in the Act. A number of shopkeep-j ers had complained about unfair com- j petition due to lack of uniformity of starting hours, and under the clause the Court, after hearing evidence from both sides, would have the, power to j determine the hours of employment. , There was no suggestion that the Court would have power to interfere I with the half-holiday or anything like j that. The power the clause conferred re- j lated to an industrial district and any part of that district could be exempted. The Minister assured the House that if as the result of the clause any real hardships developed or it was in any way abused, he would have no compunction about asking the House to < have it amended. After the Court had determined the question of hours, there was provision for a Magistrate, on application, "to review the position and veto and overrule the Court's decision. AWARDS AND THE PUBLIC. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East) suggested that the point of view of the general public should be represented to the Arbitration Court when awards were being sought. He said the employers went to the Court and put before it their own selfish point of view and the employees submitted their material point of view, but there was no one to put the point of view of the public, which, after all, carried industry. "I think there should be some official appointed to put that point of view," he said.

"Can an official be expected to put the public's point of view?" asked Mr. A. E. Jull (National, Waipawa). "Well, there should be someone to put the public's point of view," replied Mr. Schramm. "Time after time awards are made and the great mass of the public says they do not suit. But it still goes on." Mr. Barnard asked the Minister for an undertaking that the clause would not be used for interfering with the usual half-holiday. "SWEEPING POWER." The Leader of the Opposition (the Hon. Adam Hamilton) said that if the Minister of Labour had written the clause according to what he had told .the House he might not have had so much trouble. The Court, however, would have to administer the v clause as it was written. He agreed with | Mr. Schramm's interpretation of the i clause. It conferred sweeping power.

Mr. J. O'Brien (Government, Westland) said that the discussion appeared to him to be a big noise about what was really a genuine attempt to give satisfaction to employees and shopkeepers. There was hardly a business men's association that did not want the clause. The clause was a genuine attempt to do something. He added that he had never heard such a ridiculous argument in his life as that put forward by Mr. Schramm. PARTY LOYALTY. Mr. Schramm said it was the duty of every member to point out any defects in a Bill, and it was the duty of every member of the House, particularly those on his own side, not to criticise him adversely and make comparisons about his party loyalty. The clause gave power to the Judge to close shops at any time during any' particular day, "That means that the Judge can fix the weekly half-holi-day.'' said Mr. Schramm. Mr. T. 'H. McCombs- (Government,