Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

GROCERY TRADE

Assistants Seek New Award Argument Before Court By Tel egraph—Press Association WELLINGTON, May 31. Before making the first Dominion award covering grocers’ assistants, the Second Court of Arbitration to-day began to hear arguments and evidence on behalf of the workers and employers. The award will apply to all the Dominion, except Taranaki. Mr F. D. Cornwall was the workers’ advocate and Mr W. E. Anderson the employers’ advocate. Mr Cornwall said that the workers claimed a 40-hour week of five days, with work between 8.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m., but no work on Saturdays and one meal hour each day, between noon and 2 p.m. Remarking that the onus was on the employers to prove that a 40-hour week was impracticable, he i said it had always been argued that it was impracticable because grocers stocked perishables. However, master butchers in Hamilton had signed an agreement providing for no work to be done on Saturdays, and the stock of a butcher was more perishable than that of a grocer.

If, however, the Court was unable to award a five-day week, it was submitted that it should not allow more than 40 hours, even if there were woik on five days and a half. The workers claimed the following wages: Assistants and drivers, under 16 years. £1 2s 6d to £1 7s 6d; between 16 years and 17 years, £1 Ids to £1 15s; 17 years to 21 years. £2 2s 6d to £4 ss; 21 years and over, £5 10s; provision hands, £6; department manager, £7; branch manager. £7 10s; first counter hand, £6; lorry drivers, £5 15s. Employment of Women The employers in their counter-pro-posals were offering 27s 6d to a man between 18 and 19 years of age and 32s 6d for one between 19 and 20, although they were able to do a man’s full w r ork. In support of the claim for £5 10s for adults Mr Cornwall quoted the rates in other trades. The workers claimed that the employment of females in a grocery shop should be prohibited, but they might be employed in confectionery and tobacco departments. A grocer's work ; was far too heavy for a woman, it i was claimed. Three witnesses were called for the I workers. It was submitted by Mr Anderson | that although the law was that the employers had to show that a shorter working week than the workers had had was impracticable, the Court having been satisfied once, the onus was shifted to the workers to prove that conditions had changed sufficiently to make an alteration in the award desirable. The workers’ witnesses had not done so. Mr Anderson contended also that Parliament did not intend the 40-hour week to be observed by shops. He said that closing on Saturday mornings would allow unfair competition in grocery lines by other types of businesses that did not close on Saturday mornings.

Loss of “Impulse Buying” Forty to 52 percent or a grocer’s business was done on Friday and Saturday morning, and the work of serving customers and delivering goods could not be speeded up, because the shop staff was a team and additional men would get in the way. If there were no late night or Saturday morning, a large amount of “impulse buying” would be lost, never to be recovered. Mr Anderson contended that the Court had heard no evidence that wages should be raised. The wage scale the workers claimed was clumsy i and gave new titles to ordinal y grocers’ assistants in an endeavour to raise wages. The employers proposed a table of wages which, Mr Andersen said, was already in wide use and which was simple to understand. It provided a wage of 15s for boys commencing work under 15 years of age, rising to 85s in the ninth year and 95s thereafter, 17s 6d for workers starting work at ages between 15 and 16, rising to 95s in the ninth year, and similarly up to starting ages between 20 and 21. Workers starting at 21 and over would get 50s in the first year. 85s in the second, and 95s in the third and following years. They offered £5 for branch managers or workers in charge of shops. Girls in tobacco and delicatessen departments should be excluded from the award, not being grocers’ assistants.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19380602.2.87

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIV, Issue 21052, 2 June 1938, Page 11

Word Count
723

GROCERY TRADE Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIV, Issue 21052, 2 June 1938, Page 11

GROCERY TRADE Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIV, Issue 21052, 2 June 1938, Page 11