REDUCING THE HOURS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19815, 5 December 1919, Page 8

REDUCING THE HOURS.

SHOP ASSISTANTS' CLAIM. Can Christchurch retail shops close ■ p.t 5.30 p.m. instead of (i_p.ni. without causing a serious dislocation of trade? ; That was the question before tlie Arbitration Court to-day. His Honor Mr justice Stringer presided, >vitb turn Mr i W. Scott and .Mr J. A. lU’Cullnngh j An application for a reduction of hours was made by the Christchurch Retail Shop Assistants’ Union, the Grocers’ Assistants’ Union, and_ the Retail Chemists’ assistants’ Union. Mr , E. D. Martin appeared for the unions, J and Mr F. Cooper tor the employers. Mr Martin said that the grocers’ assistants asked tor _ a forty-four hour week, the hours being from 3 u.ra. to ' 6 p.m; five days a week, and from 8 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. The chemists and shop asistants asked that all time after 6.30 p.m. during tho week should bo paid for at overtime rates The question ol hours was a vexed one, and the uuions making the request embodied practically the whole of tho shop assistants ot the district. There > were retail firms in Christchurch where | the assistants only worked -Hi hour* a week, and the union contended that a general amendment on the lines suggested would cause no hardship. The business done after 6.30 p.m. was very small, and if it did not warrant overtime then it did not warrant the assistants being brought back. Tho | unions simply asked the Court to includo_ in thoir awards the important principle of tho eight-hour day. Mr Cooper said that tho best part of the drapers' trade was done between five and sis. His Honor: If the drapers’ shops closed earlier would not tho public adjust themselves to the new hours? Mr Cooper said that there were employers who did not object to 5,30 closing, but there were others who were prepared to state in Court that a very large percentage cf their business was transacted between five and six. ( His Honor said that the Court could 'not fix the hours ior opening and closing shops- That was the duty cf Parliament. The jnions were asking the Court_ indirectly to legislate in that direction, by providing that overtime should be paid after 5.30. WAGES QUESTION. Arising out of a memorandum of the Court in the Auckland award, Mr Cooper, for the employers, made an application to amend the Christchurch Retail Shop Assistants’ award (hardware, boots and soft goods sections) in respect, to the pay of junior assistants The wages are now fixed at:—First year, £1 a week; second year, £1 7s (id; third year, £1 16s; fourth year, £i los; fifth year, £3. The employer* asked that the wages of a junior assistant in his fourth year should be reduced from £3 15s to £2 os, and in the fifth year from £3 to £2 los, and, further, that there should bo provision for a sixth year junior assistant at £3 os a week. The wages of females were left to the Court. The employers also asked that messenger boys should b& exempted from the provisions of the award. Air Cooper said that there was no trade on nil fours witu tho dnipery trade, where youtbhilness was such <v disadvantage to an assistant. Customers preierred to be served by other than youths, and the present award put abnormal values upon their services. Air Martin said that there were more junior s, in the drapery trade, tho most profitable trade, than in any other, and the award was now operating well. If juniors were not becoming Competent it was often the fault of the eniplovors who did not give them the proper otv portuumes but kept them running round like parcel boys. The effect or the present award was that the employers were getting a belter service. -Mr Scott said that he understood the dispute was to ho heard in each centre. His Honor said that the Court would require to hear the parties m other , bofore comin g to a decision. iho Court reserved its decision and fidjournou till 10 a.m. to-inouow