AMENDMENTS REFUSED.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18286, 23 December 1919, Page 5

AMENDMENTS REFUSED.

ARBITRATION COURT AWARDS. SHOP ASSISTANTS. ' At the recent sitting of the Arbitral tion Court in Christchurch an tion was made by the employers to have the Canterbury Retail Shop Assistants’ Award amended by making the rato of weekly wages for male assistants entering the trade under sixteen years of age, without previous experience, £2 6s during the fourth year of service, £2 16s during the fifth year, £3 6s during the sixth year, and thereafter £3 16s. The previous rates were £2 los during the fourth year, £3 during the fifth year, and thereafter £3 16s. The grounds of the application were that the abnormal increase provided by the award between the third and fourth years (from £1 15s to £2 15s), and the subsequent rates for the fifth and sixth years, was detrimental to the male workers and to the trade inasmuch as oinly occasional workers were capable of earning the rates, thus leading to their discharge from the business after what would, under the circumstances amount to the wasting of three or more years of the most important period of their life. The employers also asked that the definition of “assistant” should he amended by striking the words or for” out of the phrase “engaged . . . in or for the retail establishments,” to make it clear that parcel boys or boys

on delivery vans are not shop assistants under the award. Both applications were dismissed. RETAIL CHEMISTS’ AWARD. The Clerk of Awards (Mr J. Reid) has received the judgment of tho Arbitration Court in the case in which the Canterbury Retail Shop Assistants’ Union and the Canterbury Retail Chemists’ Union applied under the War Regulation Act for amendments to their awards by:— “ (1) Decreasing the ordinary week’s work to forty-four hours; (2) Providing that no assistant should be employed after twelve o’clock on the day of the statutory half-holiday, and providing that Easter Saturday be observed as a full holiday. The grounds upon which the amendments were sought were stated to be “ that the granting of the abovo conditions would be the means of improving tho health and well-being of the employees and tend to create efficiency in the industry.” The Court held that the grounds of the applications were not sufficient to justify an amendment of tho awards, and the applications were accordingly dismissed. 1