FRUIT CASES

Grey River Argus, 10 November 1944, Page 2

FRUIT CASES

Auckland Retailers OBJECT TO PAYING FOR THEM P.A. AUCKLAND, Nov. 9 Business at city markets was held up for twenty minutes this morning, when buyers assembled at a meeting to protest against a proposal of the Government to introduce charges for fruit and vegetable containers.. The proposals, as outlined in a letter from the Marketing Minister, and read at the meeting are: (it That a container charge be included in existing.ceiling or'contract prices. The price paid to the grower will therefore represent payment for produce plus payment for container. (2) Subject to the container being returned in good order, the retailer will be entitled to a full return oi the container charge. (3) Retailers will be permitted to base gross percentage margins on overall cost of container, arid auctioneers will be permitted to charge commission on the over-all price. The following resolution was carried unanimously:—This mass meeting of Auckland retailers strongly protests against the proposal to enforce container charges in relation to wholesale sales of fruit and vegetables. It considers it contrary to the practice of price stabilisation, as the value of containers is taken into consideration in computing both growers’ returns and retailers’ gross profits. The container charge would result in an increased return to the grower and. corresponding loss of profit to the retailer, as the re-sale of containers constitutes a percentage of the retailers’ profits as computed by the Price Tribunal. It is further proposed that should the Government put the charge into operation the Auckland fruit retailers will refuse to pay’it or take delivery oi goods relating thereto. Mr. C. C. King, secretary. of the Auckland Retailers’ .Association said: “If a case is damaged in opening there will be no rebate, and, moreover, the retailers will have to pay cartage costs to get the containers back to the depots.” He said the scheme lent itself to disputes over the grade of sacks. Retailers undoubtedly stood to lose. Mr. J/S. Roe, president of the Association said the charge would he a gross imposition. It would he equivalent to retailers charging customers for the price of a paper bag. Retailers had fought similar schemes tooth-arid-nail in the past. Mr. King was authorised by those present to protest to the conference called by the Government for next Tuesday. Although a number of merchants ' declined to comment, the impression is gained that the wholesalers are also opposed to the scheme.