SHOPS AND OFFICES

Evening Post, Issue 126, 29 May 1936, Page 9

SHOPS AND OFFICES

THE BILL PASSED

MINISTER'S THREAT

ACTION OF EMPLOYERS

DISMISSAL NOTICES

A definite threat that lie woud take action against employers. who were seeking to evade.their responsibilities under the new industrial legislation was issued by the Minister of Labour, (the Hon. H. T. Armstrong) in the House of Representatives yesterday afternoon, when there was before the House an Qp•position amendment that the clause in the Shops and Offices Amendment J3ill providing that occupation in any irfiop. should count for the purpose of determining the rate of payment to an employee who transfers to another shop, should be struck out. After a brief third reading debate the Bill was passed. It was claimed by Opposition speakers that the clause would operate detrimentally against those youths who had to take misfit jobs for a few months after leaving school. There was nothing in the amendment for the employer; it was entirely in the interests of the employees. Mr. A. S. Richards (Government, Roskill) said the clause aimed at protecting employees against that type-of employer who engaged a youth for a . few; months for his. own purposes and then turned him adrift. Mr. T., H. McCombs (Government, Lyttelton) said it would overcome the difficulty caused through an employer sacking a worker when the time came to increase his wages.: Mr. C H. Chapman (Government, "Wellington North) said that without this provision, the position might arise that a boy would be dismissed every six months, and at the end of three years would still be receiving only 15s a week. ■ Mr. R. A. Wright (Independent, "Wellington Suburbs) said that employers would not engage an inexperienced boy if they had to pay him more than 15s a week to start, and the boy would be boycotted. The Minister sprung a surprise on the House by reading a copy of a notice dismissing sixteen girls: employed in a Wellington shop, and offering to retain their services in a temporary capacity with a prospect of permanent re-engagement later on. The notice, which was dated May 27, reads as follows:— Miss , We regret we find it necessary to carefully reorganise our staff, and we are sorry we have to give you" one week's notice. We are prepared, •however;' to re-engage you temporarily ftf. the expiration of this notice, and we have every hope that we may later be able to confirm a permanent appointment; in fact, we are quite sure this will/eventuate. , "A CONSPIRACY." "This is the type of employer who is defended by the Opposition," declared the Minister, amidst Opposition . protests. He added that if the Opposition did not let the clause go through they AvSre supporting that kind of thing. "I know what's going on," he exclaimed vehemently. "I know that there is a conspiracy going on between some of the leading lights of the legal profession with the object of getting employers out of their responsibilities. Let me warn them that they won't get away with it. If they do get away with It now, legislation will be brought down to prevent it and it will be made retrospective." Mr. W. J. Broadfoot, (Natinal, Waitomo): You are threatening. "Yes, that is a threat and I mean it," retorted the Minister. "I am going to see that'this legislation, .when it becomes law, is going to be respected, and I will come down like a ton .of bricks on .any humbug who tries to getout of it: You can call that a threat if you like." • The Minister said he had evidence, and there were schemers who had got instruments acting on their behalf inside the House, i That was a very serious matter, and he felt sure the leaders of the party would not' stand for such a thing. Mr." Armstrong asked for a reasonable chance to put the legislation on the Statute Book. From his knowledge of what was going on there was scheming all over the country. No Government could possibly strike the sub-clause out of the Bill. The safeguard was needed, and the need for it was driven home to him every hour of the day.' "This is necessary," he added, "and if the Bill does not go through in its present form, another one will be brought down soon, and it will be much more drastic." The honest employer was' not opposed to the sub-clause. The dishonest employer wanted it struck out, but he wanted it in the Bill for the purpose of dealing with the dishonest employer. He did not think that type of employer should be defended by any member of the House, but that was being done by members of-the Opposition. . . "A FINE FRENZY." Four or five Opposition members were on their feet the moment the Minister sat down, and Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea) was called on. Mr. Dickie referred to the Minister having worked himself into "such a fine frenzy" over the xBM, and said that anybody would realise that after a boy had been in a job for six months he was worth more than a boy who was just starting.' He added that unemployment was increasing as a result of the Government's legislation and in his town the registrations were increasing at the rate of eight a week. •Mr. Wright said he was sorry the .Minister had become so heated over the discussion of a particular clause The Hon. P. Fraser (Minister of Education): Heated over the notices. Mr. Wright: Nobody can stand behind a thing like that. • . , Mr. Wright said that lie wished to protest' against the Minister's suggestion that the Bill was being held up The Prime Minister had the right to move the closure at any time/if that was the case. . ■' , Mr1. S. G. Holland (National, Christchurch North) said he wished to make it quite clear that he was acting under instructions from no one. He challenged the Minister to produce the slightest evidence that members on the Opposition side had been holding the Bill up. "If anybody is to blame for holding the Bill, up," Mr. Holland continued, "it is the Minister himself for making a statement that brings five or six of us in self-defence." The Minister, he said, had charged the Opposition with defending the unscrupulous employer. That was not true, and if what the Minister had said was the whole of the story he would support him and do everything necessary to put it right. "I am not instructed by anyone, and never will be instructed by anyone, as to how I am to.vote in this House," Mr. Holland concluded.

Mir. H. Atmore (Independent, Nelson) said that Mr. Holland was appar-

ently not aware of the extent that the practice of trying to evade the legisla tion was going on.- He read a lettei couched in similar terms to the one read by the Minister, and stated-that it had been given to the staff of a branch of the same firm in another town. The firm was trading in nearly every town in New . Zealand. An Opposition member: Is it a chain store? Mr. Atmore replied that it was one of the cheap stores. The overwhelming majority of employers, he added, wanted to do the right thing by the boys and girls, but further protection was heeded. SOURCE OF NOTICE. Mr, H. S. S. Kyle (National, Riccarton) asked if the notice . had been issued by one of the big drapery stores which held a clearing sale every year. Mr. Richards said there was a definite conspiracy on the part of employers to try and defeat ths legislation. The clause was designed to protect the good employer from the ravages of the bad employer. If the Opposition wanted to protect the employees they should let the clause go through. Mr. F. W. Schramm (Government, Auckland East): That's the stuff to give them. Mr. Richards said that employers who were employing sweated girl labour at 10s a week were living in houses' costing £6000, and running round in- limousines costing over £1000. "It's just puritanical, humbugging nonsense, this stuff the Opposition are talking," declared .Mr. Richards. ; The amendment was negatived on

There was further consideration in Committee, and after a short discussion on the third reading the Bill, as amended by the Minister, was passed.