THE GROCERY BUSINESS

Southland Times, Issue 23152, 19 March 1937, Page 7

THE GROCERY BUSINESS

. ASSISTANTS SEEK AN AWARD 40-HOUR WEEK WANTED A five-day 40-hour working week, wages commensurate with service given and two weeks’ annual holiday on full pay were some of the points sought by the Southland Grocers Assistants’ Union in its application to the Arbitration Court for a new award, heard by the Court yesterday. The hearing of the dispute between the union and the employers created considerable interest as it had been suggested that the Southland dispute be made the basis of a New Zealand award. After hearing the case the Court said it would take time to consider its decision. Mr Justice Page presided, and associated with him were Messrs A. L. Monteith, and W. Cecil Prime. Mr J. Robinson (Wellington), agent, assisted by Mr W. S. Whitby, secretary of the Southland Grocers’ Assistants’ Union, presented the case for the union, ana Messrs T. O. Bishop (Wellington) and Mr L. S. Alsweiler represented the employers. Mr W. Renwick, secretary of the Otago Grocers’ Assistants Union, was also present. - The main points in dispute, said Mr Robinson in presenting the case for the union, related to hours of work, wages and the proportion of youths to adults employed. Hours of Work A clause in the union’s proposals provided that a week’s work should not exceed 40 hours, to be worked on five days of the week between 8.30 am. and 5.30 p.m. from Monday to Friday inclusive, said Mr Robinson. ■ “We know that the Court has already heard a great many applications during the past nine months on the question of working hours, and it is probable that the Court will consider that this part of the dispute has already been disposed of,” he said. “We should like to remind the Court, however, that most of these applications were heard at Wellington during the continuous sitting which began in that city on June 22, 1936, and continued until the end of August. We recognized that Section 21 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1936, and Section 3, Subsection 5 of the Factories Amendment Act, 1936, placed an obligation upon the Court to reduce the length of the working week in such a manner that the shorter working week would start all over New Zealand at the same time. It would not do to compel the Wellington employers in a given industry to observe a 40-hour week while their competitors in the other districts were permitted to continue working 44 or 48 hours, as the case may be, until such time as the Court could visit those districts in turn. “The problem of instituting the shorter working week equitably demanded a central hearing in the first place,” said Mr Robinson. “It should be pointed out, however, that of the 300 odd unions outside the Wellington industrial district only a few—a very f ew __had the opportunity or the means of transporting witnesses t 6 Wellington to take part in the proceedings. We understood that a task of the magnitude undertaken by the Court could not be accomplished without leaving a multitude of anomalies, but we also understood that when the Court visited the other districts and made new awards it would take the opportunity of hearing evidence and argument in the different districts and deciding issues upon their merits. We do not intend to submit argument at this stage in support of the shorter working week, because the onus of proving that it would, be impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently in a week of 40 hours rests upon the employers. It is not our business to prove that they can carry on efficiently in a week of 40 hours; it is their business to prove that they cannot. The burden of proof rests on them, and we do not intend to relieve them of it.” Wages Claims The claims of the union in respect to wages, were as follows: Under 16 years of age: First year of serving, first six months £1 2/6, second six months £1 7/6; second year of serving, first six months £1 12/6, second six months £1 15/-; and thereafter according to scale. Between 16 and 17 years of age: First year serving, first six months £1 10/-, second six months £1 15/-; and thereafter according to scale; 17 to 18 years, £2 2/6; 18 to 19 years, £2 15/-; 19 to 20 years, £3 7/6; 20 to 21 years, £4 5/-; 21 years and over, £6; relieving manager, £7 10/-; first shopman or man in charge, £7 10/-; departmental manager £7 10/-; branch manager, £7 10/-. After outlining at length the principle of the creation of the basic wage and its relation to workers Mr Robinson said that if the Court in its wisdom declined to reduce the working hours from 44 to 40 a week, then in justice it must award the workers monetary compensation for the additional hours they would be required to work. The book of awards contained many examples of where workers, who had their hours of work reduced from 48 to 40 a week, had their wages adjusted so that they received the same remuneration for 40 hours as previously they had received for 48 hours. It was true that the hours for grocers’ assistants had been reduced from 48 to 44 a week, but the workers concerned still had to work on Saturdays. It was for work done on this portion of the week that additional recompense should be made. Holidays The union considered that one week’s leave of absence was not sufficient. When it was considered that the workers concerned had to work five and ahalf days a week when most other workers were required to work only five days, it was submitted that some compensation should be given them in the way of a longer annual leave. Mi Robinson reminded the Court that recently it awarded adult laundry workers a 40-hour week of five days with an annual holiday of one week on full pay in addition to the statutory holidays prescribed by the Factories Amendment Act. Surely, then, if the grocers’ assistants had to work a 44hour five and a-half day week they vzere entitled to extra consideration in the matter of annual leave. Employers’ Counter-Proposals Dealing with the question of wages, Mr Bishop, on behalf of the employers, said there was a difference of opinion between the employers and the union on two points: (a) the amount of wages; and (b) whether the schedule should be based on age only or on combined age and experience. He submitted that the commencing wage for juniors and the final rate for seniors should be fixed at the standard rates being paid in 1931. An increase of those rates would be justifiable only if: (1) there had been an alteration of the duties to be performed by the workers with perhaps an added responsibility; or (2) there had been an increase in the cost of living above the 1931 level. Less Skilled Work Neither of these conditions obtained, said Mr Bishop. On the contrary, the work of a grocer’s assistant was be-

coming less skilled, because of the trade practice of packing more and more goods in containers ready to be handed to the customer, and requiring no weighing or other preparation; and the cost of living, though there had been an increase in recent months, was still below the level of 1931. The Abstract of Statistics for February have the index number for January for all groups of 885 as compared with an index number of 906 for 1931, the percentage increases over 1914 being: 1931, 44.3; 1936, 37.1; January 1937, 40.9, There was still a margin between the present cost of living and that for 1931, and therefore there was no justification for increasing wage rates above the 1931 level. Moreover, the workers had had wages on the 1931 scale for eight and a-half months, while the cost of living was considerably less than it was now, and the rise was not justified by necessity. They had had for that period the benefit of a. wage increase, well in advance of prices, “I submit, therefore, that the commencing wage should not be higher than 15/- a week, and the senior wage should not be higher than 95/- a week, these being the 1931 standard rates, continued Mr Bishop. “In the past branch store managers have not been provided for in the Southland Grocers Award, although they have been provided for in the awards for other districts. It is agreed that they should be provided for in Southland and I submit that the wage for managers should not be higher than 105/- a week. A. wage of £5 5/- a week for branch store managers was established in 1931, while the wage for senior assistants was 95/-. The Otago Grocers Assistants’ Union has recognized that a margin of ten shillings a week between the rate for senior assistantana that for managers is correct, as that is the margin they have asked, for in the dispute now ready for hearing by the Court. “As to the setting out of the wage schedule, the 1931 schedule for Southland was a bad one, being based on age only. In all other districts a scale based on combined age and experience has been incorporated in awards for many years, and we ask that the Southland award be brought up to date in this respect.” 44-Hour Week Discussing the number of hours to be worked, Mr Bishop asked for a 44hour week to be worked as follows: Within a radius of three miles of the Invercargill Post Office, between 8.30 a.m. and 5.15 p.m. on four days a week, between 8.30 a.m. and 9 p.m. on Friday, and between 8.30 a.m. and noon on Saturday. The actual working hours would then be 7| hours on each of four days, 9J hours on the fifth day, and 3J hours on Saturday; total, 44 hours. Outside a radius of three miles, a 44hour week to be worked in accordance with the Shops and Offices Act. He also outlined the horns the employers sought for country stores and pointed out die necessity of having country shops opened at an early hour. Proportion Of Workers The proportion clause, said Mr Bishop, was one of great importance. The employers asked for a junior, and a youth for the first three or fraction of three seniors, and thereafter an additional junior to each three additional seniors. This differed from the last proportion clause settled by the Court in Wellington, and in Christchurch m 1935, in that it permitted of the employment of one junior and one youth to one senior in a three-hand shop. For this purpose the following definitions were suggested: A junior shall be an employee in receipt of not less than £3 2/6 a week; a youth shall be an employee in receipt of not more than £3 a week.” The number of juniors in grocery stores in comparison with those in departmental stores was disproportionate, declared Mr Bishop. At the present time the grocery stores were suffering severe competition in the number of standard grocery lines now sold in departmental stores. He quoted figures to show that owing to the demands of the proportion clause a grocery business employing 10 hands was paying twice as much in wages as the departmental store. The latter stores were competing in many of the bread and butter lines of the grocery trade, but were not paying the same wages. , , , Mr Monteith: What departmental stores do you suggest are in competition with the grocers? Mr Bishop: It is common knowledge that a number of stores in New Zealand are in competition. Woolworths and McKenzies were referred to by the Court and Mr Bishop admitted that they, among others, were the stores referred to. Mr Monteith: Well, if they are selling grocery lines they could be made parties to this award. Annual Holiday The employers asked for the retention of the former award provision of an annual holiday of one week for assistants, and also that the same provision apply to branch store managers, said Mr Bishop. There was no justification for increasing the period of annual holiday for assistants, which had been fixed throughout New Zealand for many years. In fact it might be argued that the reduction of working time by four hours a week was a justification for abolishing the holiday altogether. A longer holiday than one week for managers was strongly opposed. The Shops and Offices Act, as amended last year, and the Court’s latest awards had brought the managers under all the same provisions as assistants as to working hours and overtime payments, and the logical result should be that concessions granted, when they were not under the same provisions, were withdrawn. In reply Mr Robinson submitted that the obligation was on the employers to prove that they could not carry on efficiently with a 40-hour week. No evidence had been produced on the point. Referring to wages, he said that the Court had to be consistent seeing that it fixed the basic wage and had departed from its policy of adhering to the standard rates of pay of 1931. He contended that chain store managers would not be getting too much if. they were paid £25 a week for the work they were expected to do. He referred to a certain agreement and declared that the principals of some stores had acted as tyrants towards their managers. In conclusion he asked that the award be not made the basis for a New Zealand award until evidence was heard in other parts of New Zealand. The Court said that it would take time to consider its decision.