ARBITRATION POLICY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22510, 19 September 1938, Page 11

ARBITRATION POLICY

“ WAGE-REDUCING

CAMPAIGN ”

l STRONG CRITICISM BY

MR CROSKERY

DISSENT FROM VIEW OF

SECOND COURT MAJORITY

“I am df the opinion that the majority of the Court has set out on a wagereducing campaign and I must enter my strongest disapproval,” states Mr A. W. Croskery, employees’ representative on the second Arbitration Court, who recently announced Ms resignation, in': a dissenting opinion attached to the award for retail shop assistants in the Northern, Taranaki, Wellington. Marlborough, Nelson, Westland, Canterbury, and Otago and Southland districts, which was issued by the Court on Saturday. The award, which provides for an increase of 7s 6d a week for senior male workers, increases similar to those in the recent grocers’ award for junior workers, and the retention of the 44-hour week, worked within a spread of 474 hours, is strongly criticised by Mr Croskery, who attacks both the wages and hours decided upon by the majority of the Court. The Court consists of Mr Justice Hunter (president) and Mr V. Duff (employers' representative), in addition to Mr Croskery. Hours of Work The workers had asked lor the 40hour week and that the shops should be closed on Friday nights and Saturday mornings. On tMs point his Honour’s memorandum states: “At the hearing of this dispute no substantial evidence was submitted to show that there) has been a change of conditions and the evidence called by the employers satisfied a majority of the Court that it is impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently on a 40-hour week, for the following reasons:—

“Both Friday evening and Saturday morning are busy shopping periods, a varying but substantial part of the week’s business being done at these times.

"Membeffc of the public would be seriously inconvenienced if they were unable to make their purchases at the shops in question on Friday evenings and Saturday mornings.” Mr Croskery expressed a contrary view on the hours of work: “I am of the opinion that the employers failed to prove that it would be impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently if 40 hours were awarded. I think that the majority of the Court has confused the question of the 40 hours with the 40 hour flve-day week. My opinion is that the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1936, section 20, lays down no such rigid condition, and while it may have meant the employment of more labour to carry out a 40 hours five and a half day week, my interpretation of the statute is that that was the effect aimed at. “The employers stated they were not pleading inability to pay any Increases awarded. I am therefore of the opinion that the Court should have been consistent with its previous decisions, and awarded a 40-hour week.” . Honrs Not Continuous On the question of continuous hours, his Honour’s memorandum states that in view of the varying conditions existing in the multiplicity of shops covered by this award, the Court had not felt that it would be justified in imposing continuous hours in this industry, the 44-hour week having to be worked within a spread of 47* hours. Mr Croskery says: “The Court has refused to make the hours continuous as it did in the Dominion grocers’: award, so that the employers will be able to employ workers all sorts of broken hours. In addition to this there are hundreds of general stores in this Dominion where workers under this award will be working alongside of grocers. The grocers’ assistants will be protected as the Court made their hours continuous, while the shop assistants, whose hours are at large, will have no set hours whatsoever, and, further, one worker will work longer hours than the other.” Wages Criticised The wages decided upon in the award were also the subject of strong criticism by Mr Croskery who; before, dealing with the specific points, states that he is in total disagreement with the decision of the majority of the Court that wages increases should be the 5s a week as in the memorandum to the sugar workers’ award, plus 2s 6d a week for the extra four hours which workers under the present award are required to work. Two points which he mentions first are the increases for junior male workers and the rate awarded to female seniors.

“In this award the Court, on a majority

decision, has 7s 6d to allot, 5s being the amount mentioned in the sugar workers’ memorandum, plus 2s 6d for the extra four hours worked. lam of the opinion that all the male workers were entitled to the 2s 6d awarded for the extra hours, plus the same amount out of the 5s as the Court awarded in the case of the pressers and others in the clothing trade award, which would have given all males from 18 years to 22 years an increase of at least 5s a week as against the 2s 6d awarded. "To-day the bespoke tailoresses’ wage is £3. A majority of the Court has awarded the senior female shop assistant £2 17s 6d, which places her below the talloress, a position which she has never hitherto been in. Mr Croskery compared the rates awarded to female upholstresses, female lift attendants and. cleaners, and female clerical workers, stating that the female shop assistant to maintain her relative position should have received not less than £3 2s 6d (the Court had awarded £2 17s Od) .

"Injustice to Females’*

'• “It is difficult for me to find appro* Sriate words to dissent from this in* ustice to females,” says Mr Croskexy, ' referring to the wages for female' juniors from 15 years and under to 22 1 years of age. After dealing with legislation on the question, he states: “Not* ' withstanding that the Legislature provided she receive a yearly increase not less than 8s a week, a majority of the Court has decided that over a period of four years to follow she shall only be entitled to an increase of 2s a week for such period.” ■ Mr Croskery also states that storemen under this award will receive 6s fid less than the same workers will receive tinder the general storemen’s award. Further, there would be the anomaly of storemen working for the same employer in the same building and one will receive less in wages than the other, a position which never before was allowed by the Court. He also claims that workers should receive retrospective pay as from one month from the hearing of the dispute, stating that this is the period allowed by law for' the Court to make its decision. It was now some 16 weeks or more since the hearing, and the workers had in no way been the cause of such delay. Award Provisions The wage for male workers of 23 years and over is £3 2s 6d, and f r female workers of 23 years and over £2 17s 6d. The scale of wages begins at 18s a week for those under 13, both male and female, being increased by six-monthly and annual Increments. The commencing wage is graded according to age, the highest being £1 • 18s fid for males ana £l 6s for females for those entering the trade without previous experience between the ages of 19 and 21. Wages for special workers are: Branch manager or worker in charge of a branch, £5 15s (man- , ageress, £3 12s 6d); departmental i manager, £5 12s fid (manageress, £3 , 10s): window dresser, £5 12s fid; advertising writer, £5 12s fid; ticket , writer or display, scenic, or commercial artist. £5 10s.