SHORTER WEEK.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 28 August 1924, Page 5

SHORTER WEEK.

SHOPS AND OFFICES ACT

AN AMENDING BILL.

A LABOUR PROPOSAL,

(BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 27. A Bill aiming at making important changes in the Shops and Offices Act, one feature being a 44-hour week," was introduced in the House this afternoon by Mr R. McKeen (Labour member for Wellington South). Mr McKeen moved the second reading of his Shops and Offices Amendment Bill, w’hich, he said was designed to remedy two' anomalies and to provide for a 44-hour week. The first anomaly which the Bill sought to remedy was the practice which had grown up of having two late nights in Christmas week, and the second anomwas the advantage which employers were taking of the ambiguity of clause five in the main Act, under which they were working assistants for • fteen minutes each day behind closed doors. To remedy this he proposed to .epeal clause five of the principal Act and clause four of his Bill proposed to substitute 44 for 48 hours in the principal Act as the week’s work for assistants.

The Minister for Labour (Hon. G. J. Anderson) said one might gather the impression that the shop assistants of New Zealand were a hard worked, down-trodden lot, but that was not so. The last award proved that, for it was an award which was being objected to by small shopkeepers from one end of New Zealand to the other. This was a Bill to aid the large and influential shopkeepers. It was not in the interests of small shopkeepers, who if thej r did not have two late nights in Christinas week,, would' find their takings seriously curtailed. If these restrictions were persisted in the House would have to take them in hand and wipe them out. The process of pinpricking which was going cn was not in the interests of anyone. He did not believe the practice of im•.perly employing assistants behind closed doors was general. If such cases could be proved to the Labour Department the offending shopkeepers would be prosecuted. To repeal the clause as proposed was not workable, as time must be given to clear away after a shop was closed. It was not necessary to make a 44-hour week mandatory. When the Arbitration Court was satisfied that hours could be reduced they would be reduced. He did not object to the Bill being read a second time, but it must go to the Labour Bills Committee, where evidence could be heard. He did not think the Bill was in the least necessary. Mr J. C. Rolleston (Waitomo) referred to the difficulties of country settlers if the shopping hours were curtailed.

The Bill was read a second time, and referred to the Labour Bills Committee.