CLOSING HOUR OF SHOPS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 160, 2 April 1921, Page 9

CLOSING HOUR OF SHOPS

SMALL SHOPKEEPERS’ POSITION

THREE APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION

During the recent short session of Parliament an amendment of the Shops and Offices Act dealing with the closing hour of shops was passed, under which small shopkeepers in the suburbs could apply to a Magistrate to be exempted from closing at the usual early hour. The first of such applications came before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., is the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when'three shopkeepers applied to be exempted from tho early closing provision of the Shops and Offices Act. These applicants claimed that their business was done chiefly after 6 p.m., but in the case of all three the point at issue was whether the hours of closing were governed by requisition signed by a majority of the shopkeepers in the particular lino of bustoes?. Mr. R. T. Bailey (Inspector of Awards) appeared for the Department of Labour. Furniture Store at Kilbirnle. Charles Bailey, the proprietor of a furnishing store at Kilbirnie, stated that he had been in business since'December 11, 1920, and employed no assistants. He had no fixed time for opening his shop, but usually opened up in the afternoon. His business was confined to residents of the suburb, and was mostly done in the evening. He applied to be allowed to remain open until 8 p.m. Ho was afraid that if his application was refused his position would become precari. ous.

Air. R. T. Bailey pointed out that the applicant carried on a business that had been subject to closing at G p.m. sines December 6, 1911. The furnishing trade closed at 6 p.m., in accordance with a requisition signed by a majority of those in the trade. The applicant must have known the position. The amendment of last session, he contended, applied only to cases where there was no closing by requisition in force. The amendment wps intended to give relief to shopkeepers who were not previously governed by closing by requisition, for it was not the intention of the Legislature to override the latter. The applicant’s shop was subject to the terms of the furniture trade’s requisition. There, were a number of shops, such- as fruit and confectionery, which remained open until 9 p.m. and 16 p.m., and which did not confine their trade to fruit and confectionery. It was for such shops that the legislation was passed. The Magistrate said that he was afraid he was unable to grant the application, tn the furniture trade the hours had been fixed by the requisition of o. majoritv of those engaged in the trade, and when the applicant commenced business in December last 6 o’clock closing was in force. Tho amending legislation of last session gave a Magistrate jurisdiction in cases where an occupier of a shop was affected bv the particular section of the Act. Applicants for exemption must to those whose business hours were no fixed by requisition. As the applicants business was governed by requisition the application would be refused. A Brooklyn Business. Mrs. B, Parsons, a second-hand dealer, Brooklyn, also applied for exemption. She stated that she had been in business since May, 1915, and she had been in the habit of closing her shop at 8 p.m. until about a fortnight before Christmas, when she was informed bv the Labour Department that she had to close her shop at; 6 p.m. This had /effected her business, and tho gross takings 'had fallen from £25 to £l5 per week. Mr. Bailey stated that in this case also the shop was governed by the terms of a requisition, .. The Magistrate said that the applicant’s case was a hard one, but he dou < not help her as he could not go beyond the conditions laid down in the statute. • An Application Withdrawn. Mrs. C. Levy, grocer, of Tasman Street, applied for exemption. She, stated that she had. purchased the business in Oc- : tabor last, and had worked it up to about £7 or £8 per week, until the early closing conditions came into force, when the takings dropped to £5. She had been keeping her shop open until 7 p.m. and desired to continue to do so. Mr. Bailey remarked that in the locality in which the applicant’s shop was situated there were six’other shops sumlarly placed. Granting the present ap- i plication would lie unfair to these other shopkeepers, who had expressed themselves as being quits satisfied with the existing conditions. The application was withdrawn at tl.e suggestion of the Magistrate.