SHOPS AND OFFICES.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1746, 23 August 1905, Page 30

SHOPS AND OFFICES.

the amending bile. CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE. OBJECTIONS TO THE MEASURE. ' The Shops and Offices Act Amendment Bill, as reported from the Labour Bills was considered in committee of the House of Representatives on the 15th instant. Air Massey heartily congratulated the Labour Bills Committee upon the work it had done in connection with the bill, but it had been presented in such a form that it would take the proverbial Philadelphian . lawyer to understand it. Clause 3, which had caused all the trouble last session, had been struck out, but did anyone know what had taken it® place? In the amending ball there was no provision made for early closing, but provision was made under which shops in certain cases must close at 6 o’clock. A wife who helped her husband after 6 p.m. must clear out (except the shopkeepers themselves fixed the hours of closing, as permitted by the act). He wanted to know what they were doing, and hoped that the mistakes of last session would not he repeated. Mr Seddon said he wanted to point out this: Unless this bill went througn, the existing act remained the law of the land. He believed it was the general desire of the Legislature to- amend the law, and he wanted members to approach the bill in that spirit. The first thing they had to do was to repeal clause 3of the previous act. He would, however, rather see clause 3 remain as it was than that there should be any infringement in regal’d to what had been granted to shop assistants. There were people who would keep their assistants on till .midnight unless it was legislated against. As the bill now stood, he was not altogether in accord with it. He thought the late hour upon which the different shops should be kept open should be fixed by legislation.

Mi- Massey: What about newspaper offices —the Government Printing Office? The machinery there is kept going all night. I. am only sorry that the bill in its present form does not apply to the employee® of the State. It is an exceedingly crude bill. Mr Seddon: If the leader of the Opposition doesn’t know the difference between a factory and a shop, it is about time he took a lesson in labour legislation. The Government has no shops—though (laughingly) we ought to have had some mutton shops in England long ago.

Mr Arnold, chairman of the Labour Bills Committee, said the bill as it now stood provided that a shop assistant was still to he restricted to fifty-two hours a week. He thought the bill'was quite clear. There might be one or two amendments necessary, but he was satisfied it was the best the Labour Bills Committee could do

Mi* Barber- said the evidence placed before the Labour Bills Committee was not acted upon, and the committee, as a matter of fact, did not understand the biU. The bill was going to cause just as much trouble throughout the colony as the measure of last session. While it was necessary to repeal clause 8, there were other clauses to be amended. 3

Mr Ell pointed out that with the exceptions named in „ the schedules shopkeepers with assistants would have to close at 6 o’clock at night unless they petitioned under clause 21 of the principal act., when they would be entitled to keep their shops open until 10. o’clock, 11 o’clock, or midnight, and to keep their assistants on duty until the closing hour.

Mr Bollaad considered tlie bill a Regular hotch-potch. Shop-assistants Vere sufficiently protected by having to work only fifty-two hours a week, or nine hours a day. As for the exemptions, they were all right as far as they went, but he wanted to know why a shopkeeper or his wife should have to carry on the business while the assistants were allowed to go away. He ■would oppose the bill at every stage. Mr Taylor said the one clear conclusion the committee had arrived at was that rabbits were fish. The bill should be sent oack to the committee. Many members iof the committee admitted that they did not understand the bill. To pass the bill as at present drafted would mean another outcry. If clause 3 of the bill of last year had been amended by making reasonable exemptions, all, or at least most, of the objections of last year would have been met. The present, bill was practically a new bill, and Under its provisions a shopkeeper could work his assistants until 11 o’clock at night. It was only a question of working shifts, because no guarantee against, late hours was given. Mr Wilford was satisfied that the limit for working the assistants was fixed. Until' the provisions of section 21 of the principal act were revoked, the shop-assistants would stop work at a certain time. Mr Aitken, a member of the Labour Bills Committee, said there were a good many things in the hill that would not be there if proper consideration had been given to it. He advised that it should be sent back to the committee.

Mir Tanner Was satisfied the bill gave satisfaction to no member of the House. The evidence before the committee was mainly tainted with a desire on behalf of witnesses, to endeavour to have provision made for their own advantage, rather than to help the committee to come to a conclusion on the general requirements. >, Mr Duthie said the two essential things to be defined were, firstly, the fifty-two hours working limit for employees, and, secondly, the weekly halfholiday. That was all the House could do. It was impossible to draft a bill that would not create some hardship. The whole thing was complicated, and the only proper course open was to abolish the Shops and Offices Act altogether, and define only the half-holi-day and the hours of labour. The hill was an officious interference. The whole thing should be put into the fire and the House go on with useful legislation. Mr Baume considered that the House should deal with the question on broad, general grounds, and provide for an appeal to the Arbitration Court, enforcements of agreements between proprietors and assistants to be made on a three-fifths majority. Mr Seddon said the question was one that should he left to the shopkeepers to settle for themselves. The bill was a good one when it first went from the House of Representatives, but it had been mangled in another place. He considered they should go back to the original bill, with a few amendments. Mr James Allen asked where the Premier’s bill was. The bill, as reported from the Labour Bills Committee, was a very different measure. Where were they? Mr Seddon: I know where I am, and 1 know' where you will be before we finish. I think the Council spoilt a very good bill by including clause 3. My proposal now is, repeal clause 3. Let us affirm that principle. What is the use of asking me where I am? Mr Kirktride said if the Premier would give them a lead and propose in all seriousness the repeal’ of clause 3, they could finish the bill in half an hour.

Mr Fisher thought it was no use beating about the bush. Not a member of the House-' understood the bill. They were in the position of the learned philosopher who endeavoured to extract sunshine from a cucumber. Why the House, could not set to work and put the hill into practical shape he failed to understand. He would resist the bill going back to the Labour Bills Committee. He concurred in Mr Duthie’s remarks. Mr Seddon said he never intended that this hill should go to the committee. He knew what would happen. There had been a waste of time. His original bill was simply one of four clauses, and the whole bill was contained in clause 2, for the repeal of clause 3 of last year’s act. The other clauses' contained safeguards for the shop assistants, to prevent them being brought back at all hours of the night, and fixed 6 o’clock closing definitely, but when he did put it there, he considered that he would have to give way a little and modify the bill. He complained that no assistance had been given him, and he advised the House to go back to the hill as he introduced it — let them get back to the position they were in when they sent last year’s bill up to the Council. After an. hour and three-quarters’ de-~ bate, the short title of the bill was passed on the voices. Clause 2, repealing clause 3 of the principal act, was also carried on the voices.

Very lengthy discussion took place on clause 3 (which the Labour Bills Committee recommended should be struck out), viz.:—Subject to the provisions of the principal act and to any award of the Arbitration Court, a shop-assistant shall not be employed in or about the shop or its business more than fiftytwo hours in one week, or at any time after one o’clock in the afternoon on the statutory closing-day, or after nine o’clock in the evening on Saturdays in districts where Saturday is not the closing day, or after six o’clock in the evening on any other working day. If any shop-assistant is employed at any work in connection with the business of any shop later than half an hour after the time prescribed by this section, the employer commits an offence in respect of each shop-assistant so employed^ Numerous amendments were suggested with the same object, to delete tlie words, “subject to any award of the Arbitration Court,” but all were lost on the voices.

It was then moved by Mr Henries that clause 3 should apply only to the four chief centres, which raised the old cry of town versus country. Mr Seddon asked the committee to negative this amendment, and then he would withdraw clause- 3 altogether. This was accordingly done, and Mr Taylor inquired if the Premier intended now to rely on clause 4 of the original act, fixing the hours of employment at fifty-two.

Mr Seddon replied in the affirmaMr Massey moved an amendment that requisitions in writing from occupiers of she ps regarding the closing hours (clause 21 of the principal act) should he determined by a three-fifths

majority of the occupiers in the district of any local authority. Mu ’Seddon said the bare majority had worked very well, and there had been no complaint®. The leader of Che Opposition was attempting to make the bill unworkable. At 1 a.m. Mi’ Taylor said the House had done a good night’s work, and they ought to go home. He moved to report progress.—Lost by 36 votes to 29. Mr Massey’s amendment was carried by 36 votes to 28. Progress was then reported, and the House adjourned.