GROCERY ASSISTANTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 66, 19 March 1937, Page 8

GROCERY ASSISTANTS

EFFORT TO GET NEW AWARD APPLICATION IN SOUTHLAND COURT'S DECISION RESERVED ( Per Preus Association. ] INVERCARGILL, March 18. A five-day 40-hour working week and wages commensurate with uic service given and , two weeks’ annual holiday on full pay, were some or the points sought by the Southland Grocers’ Assistants’ Union, in its application to the Arbitration Court lor a new award, heard by the Court today.

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.

Dealing with the question or wages, Mr T. O. Bishop, of Wellington, on oehalf of the employers, said that mere was a difference of opinion between the employers, and the union on two points: (a) The amount of wages.

(b) Whether the schedule should bp based on age only or on combined age and experience.

He submitted that a commencing wage for juniors and the final rate for seniors should be fixed at the standard rates being paid in 1931. An increase of tho_e rates would be justifiable only if:

(1) There had been an alteration ot duties to be performed by the workers with, perhaps, added responsibility or, (2) there had been an increase in the cost of living above the 1931 level.

Neither of these conditions obtained, said Mr Bishop. On the contrary, me work of the grocers’ assistant was becoming less skilled because oc me trade practice of packing more ana more goods in containers ready to bo handed to the customers and requiring no weighing or other preparation, ana the cost ot living, though there nad been an increase in recent months, was still below the level of 1931. Employers asked for a retention of the former award, provision of annual holiday of one week for assistants, and also that the same provision apply to branch store managers.

In reply, Mr Robinson, of Wellington, agent for the union, submitted that an 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 had fixed a basic wage and had departed from its policy ot adhering to standard rates of pay in 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 go. 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 I parts of New Zealand.