EMPLOYEES DISMISSED

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 May 1936, Page 7

EMPLOYEES DISMISSED

TO EVADE NEW LEGISLATION

ALLEGATIONS IN HOUSE

[per press association.]

WELLINGTON, May 28.

In the House, further consideration was given in committee to the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill. Mr. Broadfoot moved an amendment to clause seven, 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 that it would mean young people would not readily be able to change their occupation, as most employers would prefer to engage ah inexperienced employee rather than one who had been half trained in a different class of shop.

Mr. McCombs said the provision would overcome the difficulty caused through the employer sacking a boy when time came to increase his wages. Mr. Armstrong said that under the Bill, an ■ employee would be 19 years of age before he received £2 a week, and employers, or many of them, would employ a boy till he was receiving, say, 23/-, and then dismiss him and take another at 15/-. Opposition cries of No. Mr. Armstrong said the 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 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 away with it. and if they did get away with it now, legislation would be brought down to prevent it.

Mr. Broadfoot: You are threatening now.

Mr. Armstrong: Yes, that is a threat. He added that he intended to see that the law was respected. He would stand no humbug. 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, and if it did not remedy the position, more drastic legislation would be brought down. He claimed that honest employers were in favour of the clause. The dishonest employer wanted it struck out. Mr. Holland 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 of an employer dismissing employees, and offering to re-engage them temporarily. He said it was the same employers as the 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 protection. 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 th'e Minister. He said there were firms in Auckland paying dividends of 12 to 15 per,cent., who employed girls and women at 10/and 12/6 a week. The Bill aimed to protect the scrupulous employer from unscrupulous ones. The amendment was lost on the 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 the House with amendments, read a third time and passed. DISMISSAL NOTICES WITHDRAWN WELLINGTON, May 29. In the House, this morning, Mr. Chapman asked the Minister of Labour (in connection with Members for Napier, Hawke’s Bay, Timaru and Nelson), whether he will take steps to ensure that the policy of the Government in connection with shops and offices, is not rendered ineffective through the discharge of employees before July 1. He said .that a chain stores firm, with shows in many towns of the Dominion, has given its staff a week’s notice, and offered to re-employ them on a temporary basis, for the apparent purpose of evading the application of Government order respecting wage standards of shop assistants. Mr. Armstrong, in reply, quoted section seven, sub clause three of the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill, and said that in view of the concluding words of the sub-clause, employers must credit employees with service prior to the passing of the Act, and cannot evade the minimum wages requirements of the section by dismissing shop assistants prior to July 1. and re-engaging them. It is further provided in Section 21 of the Shops and Offices Amendment Bill that no person employed in any shop or office shall be dismissed or reduced in wages, merely by reason of any alteration made in the working hours under the Bill. These two clauses may prove sufficient to ensure that the Government’s policy is not rendered ineffective, through .discharge of employees, but in any case the Department is closely watching the position throughout New Zealand. “If it appears to me necessary,” added the Minister, “in the light of reports which I receive from districts, the Government will consider what further steps should be taken to see that the purposes of the present legislation are not frustrated. So far as the particular case quoted by members is concerned, the Department took the matter up yesterday with the firm concerned, and has received an assurance that the notices issued to members of its staff in various parts of New Zealand on May 27, have been withdrawn.”

Mr. Armstrong said that this position did not apply only to one firm. He quoted instances where other firms had given the employees notice of dismissal.

EMPLOYERS’ GUILDS

WELLINGTON, May 28

A deputation from the New Zealand Alliance of Labour and the Trades and Labour Council waited on the Prime Minister and Minister of Labour to-day, complaining that, by the formation of guilds, which were really company unions, inspired by the employers, attempts were being made to undermine the industrial legislation that is being passed by the Government. “If we find anyone running us into a blind alley, he is not going to keep

us there long,” said the Prime Minister, in reply. “They are not getting away with anything! We will cover the whole ground with retrospective legislation.”