COURT DIVIDED

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 287, 2 September 1942, Page 6

COURT DIVIDED

Extent Of Wage Increases To Shop Assistants NEW AWARD ISSUED

A new award for shop assistants has been made by the Court of Arbitration for two years from September 7. It covers the Taranaki, Wellington, Nelson, Marlborough, Westlaud, Canterbury, Otago and Southland industrial districts. A dissenting opinion was recorded by the employees’ representative on the Court, Mr. A. L. Monteith. According to a memorandum by the president of the Court, Mr. Justice Tyndall, the employers’ representative on the Court, Mr. W. Cecil Prime; was not in full agreement with the rates of wages fixed, but recorded no formal dissent. , . . , His Honour’s memorandum stateu that the principal matters referred to and settled by the Court related to interpretation, classification of workers, wages, weekly employment, temporary or casual hands, females employed in special departments, hours, holidays, proportion, workers performing higher duties, din-ing-room accommodation, overtime,, special dress, closing of shops') scope of award, and term of award. The wages of shop assistants under this award had been increased in further recognition of the fact that these workers were called on to work 44 hours a week, spread over five and a .half days. The nominal rates for male assistants had, in most cases, been increased by i/b a week for seniors and by amounts varying from 1/- to 7/6 a week for juniors. The rates.for female assistants had been increased by 10/- a week for seniors, and by amounts varying from 1/- to 1/6 a week for juniors. In fixing the new wage scales, the Court had taken into consideration the rates recently agreed on for shop assistants between the employers and the workers in the Northern Industrial District. At the same time, some weight had been given to the fact that drastic changes had occurred in the industry since the northern agreement was arrived at. It was desirable to point out that the rates prescribed in this award were subject to the Court’s two general orders, whereas the rates set out in the northern district award were subject to the first general order only..

Dissenting Opinion. In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Monteith stated that the junior rates (under 21) were less by 1/- to 10/- a week than the rates now in operation in the Northern Industrial District and, as this, industry carried a large proportion of junior labour, the rates for juniors were of great importance. These junior rates, both male and female, were on a par with the rates awarded in factory award, but no allowance had been made for the 44‘hour week which these workers had to work, as against the 40-hour week m factories. In addition, these juniors got two days' annual holiday less than that agreed to in the Northern Industrial DisTiie male rate between 21 and 22 was £4/2/6 a week, plus 5 per cent, and 4/4 for 44 hours, and the unskilled rate in a factory for 40 hours was £4/10/-, plus u per cent, and 4/9. These workers therefore got less than the unskilled rate and worked four hours longer to get it. Also, it cost more to dress a worker to give service in a shop than it did to work in a factory. The wages for all workers in the Northern Industrial District award, apart from the cost-of-living bonus, were greater than those awarded here, and the majority of the rates did not make up for the extra hours worked. Furthermore, the junior male and female rates were less than awarded by the Court in the Auckland (25-mile radius) Fruit and Vegetable Shop Assistants’ Award made on July 3, 1942 (just a few weeks ago), and the junior male rates were less than awarded to junior male grocers’ assistants in an award made by the Court on December 4, 1941. “I-cannot understand why the Court has awarded these junior workers less than was awarded to juniors in fruit and vegetable shops; I cannot see any consistency in these three sets of junior rates, based on the duties they perform,” stated Mr. Monteith. He continued that in his opinion, this industry could well afford to pay the rates in operation in the Northern Industrial District and the Court, when making that award, did so with the full agreement of both parties. It was to be borne in mind that the Northern Industrial District covered about 38 percent. of the employers in this industry in New. Zealand. These would face the fact that the firms having shops both in Wellington and Auckland (and there were quite a number of them) would pay the lower wages where the cost of living was higher—in his opinion an absurd position. It would be more reasonable that Wellington, where the workers bad to meet higher costs, ’ should receive more, but to receive less was ridiculous. It appears to him that no notice at. all had been taken of the conditions that had been in operation in the Northern Industrial District and that an attempt had been made to provide junior labour at a cheaper rate than the employers had been prepared to pay in another district. The only change that had been noticeable since the making of the last award had been the prosperity of the employers and, even though some were present in Court during the hearing of the dispute, none elected to give evidence. In the above circumstances, the term of the award, two years, was as unfair as the rates awarded. For these ami other good reasons, which would be apparent to anyone making, a comparison with the conditions and wages in operation in the Northern Industrial District, he dissented strongly.