SHOP ASSISTANTS’ AWARD

Evening Star, Issue 21130, 16 June 1932, Page 3

SHOP ASSISTANTS’ AWARD

QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION ARBITRATION COURT ASKED FOR RULING A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held this morning. Mr Justice Frazer presiding, and associated with him were Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers' assessor) and Mr A. L. Monteith (workers’ assessor). The object of the sitting was to obtain an interpretation tinder the Otago and Southland shop assistants’ award. The question was: Should a boy employed in a shop, covered by the award, on such work as sweeping and dusting the shop, delivering parcels by band, running messages, and other duties of n general nature, be classed as a junior porter ? The facts of the case were that Mr R. Penrose, boot retailer, a party to the shop assistants’ award, employed a boy, aged fifteen, allegedly as a _ message boy. His duties were principally sweeping and dusting the shop, delivering parcels by band, running messages, and making himself generally useful. Mr W. Batchelor appeared for the union, and Mr A. S. Cookson for the employers. In the course of bis address, Mr Batchelor said: An opinion is desired on the following question:—“Should a boy employed in a shop covered by the award, on such work as sweeping and dusting the shop, delivering parcels l y hand, running messages, and other duties of a general nature, be classed as a junior porter? ” In the shop assistants’ award, dated March 17, 1924, it was directed, inter alia, in clause 4 (c) that “ Porters shall be paid not less than £3 15s per week.” In August, 1925, a question arose as to the interpretation of the clause to the following purpose:—“ Should a boy employed in a shop to do such duties as sweeping out shop, delivering parcels by hand, and running messages he classed as a porter and be paid in accordance ith the above provision? ” In giving its opinion the Court stated : “ The definition of a ‘ porter ’ is contained in clause 2 (h) of the award, which reads as follows:—A porter is a worker employed by an employer party to this awmrd, whose duties are substantially cleaning, delivering parcels by hand, running messages, and other duties of a general nature usually performed by porters. The work of a message boy certainly comprises some of the specified items of porters’ work; but such matters as sweeping, delivering parcels, and running messages are obviously light duties that are only part of a porter's general duties,” This part of the court's opinion certainly makes it clear that a message boy’s work is the lighter work of a porter; therefore be is a porter of a class. When this opinion was given, no provision was made in the award for a scale of wages for other than those who performed the heavier work of a porter. In a later awmrd, however, dated September 24, 1927, an alteration was made in the wording of clause 4 (c), which referred to the payment of porters. The new wording reads as follows: —“ Porters shall be pail in accordance with the foregoing scale.” The scale referred to is contained m clause 4 (a), and makes provision for a payment of wages to workers of various ages, commencing at “ Under seventeen years of age, £1 5s per week, and rising each year until they reach an adult age, with a wage of £4 5s per week.” If it is directed that porters shall he paid in accordance with this scale, then it is obvious that hoys under seventeen and youths between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one, wdio do work which comprises a>. oof the items of porters’ work must be junior porters. There arc no other persons to whom this can apply, and we base onr statement on the fact that both this court and the employers have stated that this class of worker is not a “ junior ’’ as classified in clause 2 (f) of the present award. Under the 1921 award it may be reasonably argued that these workers were not covered by any provision, but further statements in the court’s opinion, and the subsequent alteration in the wording of clause 4 (c) makes it evident that they are provided for in the present award. 1 The court admits that the work of these workers comprises some of the specified items of a porter’s work, and ii is reasonable to suggest that a boy under seventeen years of ago docs the lightest part of a porter’s work, and that as .ie becomes older bis work becomes heavier. There must be some period when this class of worker is a junior porter, and this period must be before he is twenty-ono years of age; therefore, as the award makes provision for junior porters under seventeen years of age, all those wlio perform any part of a porter’s work must he classified as junior porters. Onr contention is strengthened by referring to another clause in the award, clause 2, sub-clauses (e) and (f). the former referring to “seniors ” and the latter to “ juniors.” Seniors arc defined as shop assistants, as also arc juniors. Both do the same class of work, the former doing the heavier and the latter doing the lighter work, as in the ease of porters and junior porters. No one would he so foolish as to suggest that as “ juniors ” do not perform all the duties of a “ senior ” they are not shop assistants, and lor this reason we contend that any person under the age of twenty-one years, performing so’ of the duties of a porter, comes under the classification of a junior porter. Further in the opinion we find the fol-lowing:—-“Further, if message boys, as such, were to have been excluded from employment, the award would certainly have made special provision for junior porters, as lias been done in the case of junior storemen and packers.” The action of the court, when framing the 1927 award, proves conclusively that the intention was to exclude message boys, as such, from employment, and to ploce them in a position whereby they would be protected regarding wages and conditions of work.

-Mr Cooksou said the application was based on a specific case, and Mr Batchelor was endeavouring to get a wide definition of boys’ work, and he thought they could rely on the court taking as reasonable a view as it did when it gave the decision already referred to. There could be no comparison between the position of a boy doing messages and little light Jobs such as the boy was doing, and the position of the junior assistant who went into the shop for the purpose of becoming a shop assistant. In most cases the boys who were employed under the circumstances in which that boy was employed were merely filling in time. They secured employment without any intention on the part of cither the employer or the boy of the employment ever becoming permanent. If the court were to rule that any boy who was doing work similar to the boy in the rase mentioned was to 'be treated as a junior porter, it would mean that an avenue of employment which was now available to boys would be closed entirely. It scorned io the employer’s that, it was rather a pin-pricking application It was against the interests of Ixrys .such as this one that hard artd fast conditions as to rates of wages that should be paid should ho imposed.

No employer would tukc on a boy and pay him 25s a week to do work which was of so little value. Km plovers would say the rate was prohibitive. If the court took the view it took in 1925, it would still leave it open to the employer to give boys temporary employment. It was a different matter d a hoy intended to stay on. Ho thought there was a clear distinction to be drawn between the boy who went into a shop permanently and a boy who went there merely to fill in time. He hoped the court would take that wide view of it and not lay down any rule which would result in boys who wore employed as this boy was being classed as junior porters. His Honour, addressing Mr Cookson said he could distinguish between : message boy purely and simply and ; porter, hut how could ho distingnisl between boy who was running mes

sagos, sweeping and dusting the shop and making himself generally useful, and a junior porter? The puzzle wa: where to draw the line. Mr Cookson said it was very difficult, and the position was made more difficult by the fact that establishments differed greatly in size. In a shop of the size in question a porter’s work was very small, but in big establishments there was a largo amount of cleaning to do, and men wore employed to do it. The award covered all establishments. irrespective of size. His Honour said he took it that the union did not want to act oppressively, especially at the present time, when the finding of positions for youths was ■such a problem, but that a ruling was wanted for the guidance of the parties so that they would know exactly what the position was. While the court wishe to look after the position of youths, it did not want to do anything that would curtail employment for men. The court had not to consider any question of policy, but would give a ruling on the strict reading of the award, ft would consider its decision.