PARLIAMENT

Evening Star, Issue 22351, 29 May 1936, Page 6

PARLIAMENT

SHOPS AND OFFICES BILL PASSED

DISMISSAL AND RE-ENGAGEMENT

TACTICS THE MINISTER'S ALLEGATIONS [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON. May 28. The House met at 2.30 p.m. The New Plymouth Borough Land Exchange and Empowering Bill was read a second time. Eurther consideration was given in committee to the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill. Mr Broadfoot moved an amendment to clause 7 to strike out the provision that occupation in any shop should count for the purpose of determining the rate of payment to an employee who transfers to another shop. He said it would mean that young people would not • readily be able to change occupation, as most employers would prefer to engage an inexperienced employee rather than one who had been half-trained in a different class of shop. Mr Richards said the provision was in the Bill merely to protect the employee against that type of employer who engaged a youth for a few months for his own purposes and then turned him adrift.

Mr M'Combs said the provision would overcome the difficulty caused through an employer sacking a boy when the time came to increase his wages. Mr Chapman said that without the provision the position might arise that a boy would bo dismissed every six months, and at the end of three years would be still receiving only 15s a week.

Mr Wright said employers would not engage an inexperienced boy if they had to pay him more than 15s to start, and the boy would be boycotted. Mr Armstrong said that under the Bill an employee would be 19 years of age before he received £2 a week, and employers, many of them, would employ a boy till he was receiving, say, 235, and then dismiss him and take on another at 15s. Opposition cries of “ No.”

Mr Armstrong said employers would simply swap employees, and that was what was happening. It was going on every hour of the day. , Only that morning he had received a report from an inspector that a certain firm had given notice of dismissal to 16 girls, and he said that was done because of the legislation now before the House. Yet the Opposition were holding up the legislation and allowing employers to get away with it. These girls would then be re-engaged at the minimum wage. Employers would not be allowed to get aw iy with it, and if they did get away with it now legislation would be brought down to prevent it. He appealed to the House to allow the Government to have a chance to put the Bill into effect. From his knowledge of what was going on the provision was necessary, ana if it did not remedy the position more drastic legislation would be brought down. He claimed that the honest employer was in favour of the clause, and the dishonest employer wanted it struck out. Mr Dickie said that if a boy -had been six months in a job he was easily worth more than 4s above a new chum. The number of unemployed boys was growing, and he would like to learn the correct position. Mr Wright said it could not be said the Opposition was holding up the legislation, because the Prime Minister had a weapon to overcome that. Mr Holland said he would do all in bis power to stop the position to which the Minister had referred, and he said it was a gross exaggeration to say that, employers all over New Zealand were exchanging their employees.

Mr Atmore said he had another case o£ an employer dismissing employees and offering to re-engage them temporarily. He said it was the same employer as tho case quoted by the Minister, but in another town. Many employers did wish to do the right thing, but there were boys and girls who needed Mr Kyle asked if the firm mentioud was one of those big drapery firms that had big clearing sales periodically and engaged temporary assistants for them. Mr Richards said he knew of large firms in Auckland who had given notice to their employees on the lines of the case quoted by the Minister. He said there were firms in Auckland paying dividends of 12 to 15 per cent, who employed girls and \v;omen at 10s to 12s 6d a week. The Bill aimed to protect the scrupulous employer from tne unscrupulous ones. The amendment was lost on tho voices.

Several amendments of which notice had been given by the Minister were agreed to.

Another amendment moved by the Minister to ease the position as applied to banks was agreed to. The Bill was reported to tho House with amendments, read a third time, and passed. The second reading of the State Advances Corporation Bill is reported under separate headings.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO TRANSPORT BILL IPeh United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 28. When the Legislative Council met this afternoon the Leaguo of Nations Sanctions Regulations Confirmation Bill was read a first time. The second reading of the Transport Licensing Amendment Bill was moved by the Leader of the Council (Hon. M. Fagan), who gave notice of his intention to move several amendments. These generally were machinery amendments, and would have the effect of tightening up the procedure on appeal frem the decisions from a licensing authority in the way of supplying the Minister with full details relevant to any appeal. Mr Fagan said that an amendment would bo made with the object of making it clear that a licensing authority must record the reasons for its '■decisions, and it would also lie provided that there was to be available to any member of the public on request a certified copy of a licensing authority’s decisions and the reasons for them. It would also be provided that all verbal evidence taken before licensing authorities was to be on oath. At present he Bill made no such requirement, and experience _ had indicated that in some cases evidence was obviously incorrect to the knowledge of a witness. If a licensing authority’s decision was questioned and an appeal was made to the