NO FRUIT OR VEGETABLE CONTAINERS AS FROM MONDAY IN WANGANUI

Wanganui Chronicle, 18 February 1949, Page 4

NO FRUIT OR VEGETABLE CONTAINERS AS FROM MONDAY IN WANGANUI

A decision not to pay for any fruit or vegetable containers as from next Monday was made at a representative meeting of members of the Wanganui branch of the New Zealand Federation of Retail Fruiters and Greengrocers (Inc.) yesterday. The effect of the decision is that members of the federation will pay only the price at which the fruit or vegetables is bought at auction and will not pay the additional container charge which averages about ninepence.

In a statement released yesterday, the federation stated that the charges were first instituted throughout New Zealand in February, 1945, after lengthy discussions between the retail trade and Government representatives. They were instituted as a war emergency regulation as a method of conserving supplies of timber and jute. It was felt at the time by the retailers that any shortage of containers was manufactured and not real and that the growers had bought up supplies far ahead of immediate needs in anticipation of a compulsory container charge at higher prices within a few months. “This content’on was proved correct beyond question when retailers’ yards and sack collecting agencies were overflowing with containers of all sorts and were unable to find a market whille the growers were disposing of accumulated stocks at a big profit,” the statement added.

“The growers’ organisations undertook to accept back all cases at a price which allowed for cost of collection but neither by act nor in spirit was this agreement honoured,” it was stated. Accumulated stocks were sold at a heavy loss, large numbers of containers being sold for firewood. PREVIOUS DISPUTE. The regulations were revoked in April, 1946, after considerable pressure had been exerted. After several weeks of pre-war conditions the growers imposed an arbitrary charge “considerably above the resaleable value” and in May, 1946, this led to action by the retailers, who refused to take delivery of any goods covered by a container charge. Agreement was then reached on the principle of a charge in keeping with the secondhand resale value of the container, and this agreement was in force until February, 1948, when the growers again sought to increase the charges. Their argument was that the retailers should and could pass the charge on to the public. “A retailer would find it impracticable to pass on the actual container charge to his customers,” the statement added. “If for instance, he added the smallest monetary unit of a halfpenny to each pound of carrots, in a sugar bag he would receive approximately 2s 4d for a container costing 6d. This would be unfair to the consumer, who is already paying comparatively high prices for fruit and vegetables and it would be just as unfair to ask the retailer to absorb this charge which would represent between three and four per cent, on his turnover and would virtually put him out of business. “The growers use the containers for their production and the marketing of this produce and is part of the normal production costs just as paper bags and wrappings are a normal cost against a retail business. If it is argued that they are a chargeable extra then the same argument would operate in favour of retailers charging a half-penny, which is close to the average cost, for every paper bag which they served to the public.” It was stated yesterday that retailers were firm in their determination not to accept container charges incurring a substantial loss to themselves.