CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16417, 4 May 1921, Page 8

CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

SHOP ASSISTANTS. ABOLITION OF LATE NIGHT. by the Christchurch Iletail bhup Assistants' Union for Higher wages, for the abolition of " into night,’" and for exmcessums on gv,oda purchased, were heard by the = Conciliation Council this morning, Mr flagger preseoing. The assessors were —tor tlio employers, Messrs T. Cooper, O. and A. H. Hobbs; for the Union, Messrs J. M’Combs, A. W. Croslcery and R. D. Martin. The wager, claim read:—Branch manager or manageress, £8 10s a week; departmental manager or manageress, £8; window dresser, £7 10s; traveller, £7; assistants, sixteen years of age and under, males for first year of service, £1 15s, up to £4 10s in fifth year of service, and £6 thereafter; females, from £1 10s to £3 in fourth year, and £4 thereafter. head storemen or packers, £6; storemen, packers or porters, from £2 when seventeen years and under, to £4 when twenty years of age and under twenty-one, and £5 10s thereafter; lift attendants, £3 15s: casual hands, minimum payment per day, males £1 ss. females £l. The hours of employment asked were: of the senior wage, from 9 a.m.* to noon or 1 p.m.. and from 1 p.m. or 2 p.m. to 5 p.m., on five days of the week, and from 9 a.m. to 12 noon on the day of the weekly halfliolidav ; juniors from 8.30 a.m. to 12 noon or 1 p.m., and from 1 p.m. or 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. on five days of the week, and from 8.30 a.m. to 12 noon on the day of the haliholiday; apprentices, storemen porterß and packers to begin at 8 a.m. ; New concessions asked were:—That any ; goods purchased by an employee shall be charged for Rt cost price onlv: that, ad cm-ploye-cs shall be allowed at least ten minutes, both in the morning and afternoon, for refreshments; that in cases where an employee is not a member of tho union he shall pay to his employer a sum ecmivn- en to tho union foci., and the accumulation oi such fees shad be handed to the union quar tally, end credited to the Union’s Benevolent F M>"Cooner said that tl.ere w. V no chance of the emnVu-ers arreeinn to tn» demanOa in regard to branch managers and esses, and departmental managers ana °~Mr (>oskerv said that the uni-'-n wcidd not drop this portion of its demands. Lrauc ?o)^„ C, T!7 a VrahY\,nd a ?rS ß liY'u , arfs d^ The Commissioner said that it looked as if the. clauses would have to < r o to the C °Mr t M’Combs said that these fittings of j epresentatives of both north- round a table were the essence of arbitration m New /ieaitd If the as9e«.‘*ors present could po- ibi\ settle tho *0”“ they Should do *> without referring the matter to the Court. Mr Cox said that the employers could not agree to he demand. The clauses concerning branch managers and * manageresses, departmental managers and manageresses and window dressers were referred to the Court. Discussing the employers’ counter proposals for wages. Mr M’Combs said that he hoped the employers were not serious. They actually proposed a reduction in wages Oi 5s a week for the shop assistants °* Christchurch in to their fifth year, ihe Abstract of Statistics showed that since the present, award was made, up till tho latest official figures available, there had been nn increase of 9 per cent in the cost of living index Yet the employers, actually came along and proposed a reduction, of 5s a wcok m race of this tremendous increase m the cost of living. It. was proposed to give full-grown women from 25. to 30 a u week. He regarded .that as a scandal. . . , , Mr Hobbs: Have you included the wage. Tho employers’ oiler is not fair to W< Mr U yiobbsi said that the unions’ proposals were just as impossible from the employers point of view, tho employers’ proposals mi'dit ■seem to be from tnc workers point, oi view For instance, there was the clause concerning dress allowance. How could the cost of living bo reduced if wage, were to be out higher and higher. . Mr M’Combs said that from calculations he had made an increase of 10 per cent in wages would mean only an increase ot li per cent in tho cost of the drapery article sold to the public. Tho womenfolk m the community would far rather pay the extra per cent than know that female shop assistants received only 25s or 30s a week. Mr Cooper said that t.he present was not a time for extravagant, even liberal, wages. The employers had carefully gone into the position, and they meattt that their proposals should be considered seriously. It had to bo remembered that trade conditions had undergone a vast change since December, 1920. Employers were forced to take up their present attitude. The employers’ wage proposals were: —Asfemales 10s a week: second year, 22s 6d and los; "tnird year. 80s and 20s; fourth year, 49s and 255; fifth year, 55s and 30s; thereafter, £3 15s and £2. The Commissioner said the workers contended that when the cost of Ijvin" was going up they had to drag behind six or seven months before they got an increase in wages, find that now the emnlorrrc wished to anticipate a in the cost of living by n.-hiiw down wages. Mr Cooner: Tt d~bfitoabU\ But what ca" v>u do wb# >v > the money isn't t^’ere? Mr Martin: The erv.r,Tnver« on the Coast did not propose to reduce wages. (Proceeding.)