COUNCIL OP CONCILIATION

Evening Star, Issue 16033, 9 February 1916, Page 4

COUNCIL OP CONCILIATION

OTAGO GROCERS. AGREEMENT GOME TO. . *^ r J- R. Triggs, Conciliation Commie-, sioner, sat this morning to hear tho case of tho Otago Grocers’ Assistants’ Union. The old award expired on the Ist July last. The assessors for tho union were Messrs W. J. Rennick, G. Trimm, and G. O’Hara. The employer's were represented by Messrs G. J. Laurenson, M. Ford, and A. S. Cookson. I\li' R. Breen conducted the case for the union. In the old award the wages for grocers’ assistants ranged from 10s to 50s, and for drivers up to 50s. The men now asked a range of 10s to 65s for grocers and. up to 65s for drivers; also that the maximum be reached at the age of 21 instead of 22 years; and application was made for a compulsory preference clause. The employers’ counter-proposals provided for 10s to 55s for grocers and 65s for drivers of the age of 22 and upwards. Mr Breen said that before they started he would like an understanding about one of the claims in the employers’ counterproposals. If they could not come to an understanding on that point it would be as well to go straight to the Court. He referred to tho provision for tho employing of females. Females never had been employed in tho grocery business, and had never been named in any award. If an employer preferred to employ a woman he was at liberty to do so, provided: h© paid the same wages as to a man. The union’s proposals were for ono wage. If the employers insisted on this demand it was no use going on. Mr Cookson replied that it was now necessary to make provision for the employment of women, on account of tho growing scarcity of male assistants. It was not proposed to take advantage of the provision in tho meantime, but it was necessary to have it in the award because of thO'shortage of men—a shortage that was likely to become more pronounced. It was not reasonable to ask that women should he paid tho same wage as men. Ho thought that to some extent women were already employed; certainly they were in the drapery trade. Mr Breen: If a female can attend to a customer, why not give her the same pay as a, man? It is scandalous to come with a proposal to offer her about half—the men £2 15s and the women 30s. I think that when employers come down with counter-proposals they should ba so !m like reasonable, and this is not. The Commissioner: Would the assessors agiee to a few females being employed, say, to serve at the confectionery counter? Mr Breen j That has been provided for all along. The Commissioner: I dorit think it would be a good thing, oven for the employers themselves, to have women employed at half rates, because some employers would take advantage of it to undersell others. It would lead to unfair competition. Mr Breen : Can the employers produce any award, cither in New-Zealand or Australia, where provision is made for females ? s°okson In the grocery trade? ill' Breen: Yes. Mr Cookson : Well, it is in. the drapery, sir Breen: It isn’t tho same. You cant possibly run a drapery business with all men. Mr Cookson ; Will you agree to any increase in the number of females? Mr Breen : We object to cater for any person who is not covered by tho union, or for any persons not previously employed. It is tantamount to telling emnioyers to put on women instead' of mem Mr Cookson : How do you propose to meet the shortage of men? Where are the assistants of the future to come from ? Mr Breen : We say that there is nothin nto prevent the employment of females now. If men are not available, and it is necessary to have women, you have the under-rate clause to work on. Mr Cookson: That would’lead to a}l sorts of difficulties about nnder-rato permits, Mr Breen; That is tho remedy you have. J Mr Cookson: I don’t consider it efficacious. Mr Breen : What you mean by your proposal is not that the employers may employ women, but that they may employ as many as they like. Mr Cookson : It must be realised that women are not so effective as men. Mr Breen : This is another attempt on the part oi the Employers’ Association, the same as in the cases of the rope and twine workers and the soap makers. The workers in this (tho grocers’) industry are all men. Why should they make provision for women?. They might as well be asked to make provision for Chinamen. Mr Cookson went on to say that it would not do for the employers to relv 011 . under-rate clause, because the union had only to object to the granting it P an d it would not be granted. Mr Broen said that was not so. The union had objected in some glaring cases, but that did not prevent the inspector from exercising his full powers. Mr Cookson : There Is no provision for the employer being heard. Mr Breen ; The employer must be heard, because he has to pay the man, and he must give his reason for not paying the full wage. The Commissioner : Do you positively object to this clause about‘females being put in?

Mr Breen ; Yes ; tv© object to any discrimination. If they want women they can come in under the under-rate, clause. Mr Cookson : I think it quit© proper to draw a parallel between the drapery and grocery trade.

Mr Breen : Wo will not discuss that at all. Women are not employed in . the ■grocery trade. It is not the custom. The Commissioner: That is a very strong argument. (manager for A. and J. vai , ane ) : -A- of ns are finding a difficulty about getting good male assistants.

Mr Breen ; Well, if you can’t get male assistants and have to employ women, if you don’t reckon they are good enough have tho under ■'Tate wage to work on. The award has never said anything about sex. It would not be workable to have men and women together behind a counter. Mr Cookson; I don’t see why it shouldn’t be workable.

The Commissioner : If you have this women s clause put in you are in trouble, v -u v ’ 3r ® employer I would hold up both hands against it for my own sake. It would give no end of trouble. Mr Cookson suggested that this point should be loft in the meantime, and see h°Y_ they .got on with the" other clauses. Tins was agreed to, and after lenvthy discussion about the various subjects o the workers retired so as to allow the employers to confer.

On reassembling Mr Cookson said that the employers had agreed to a settlement on the following basis Hours of work as provided by the Shops and Offices Act: wages, same as in the Wellington award, from IQg to 57s 6d for grocers and 15s to 57s 6d for driver's; holidays as usual, with the inclusion of tho grocers’ picnic day- casual workers, Is sd, the same as in the Auckland award, “casual” to be defined as working less than a full week; the Court’s clause as to under-rate workers; the Court’s preference clause; the application of the award to be the same as in tho old award: the scope to be a radius of 20 miles from the Post Office; the term to be from the 14th test till 20th December, 1917. If the workers agreed to these provisions the employers would agree to cut out the counterproposals about women.

The various points were further discussed in conference. Then the workers conferred alone, and in a few minutes Mr Breen announced that the workers agreed to the terms as submitted.