FIVE AND HALF DAY SHOPPING WEEK

Taupo Times, Volume III, Issue 140, 1 October 1954, Page 7

FIVE AND HALF DAY SHOPPING WEEK

FOR FOUR GROCERS AND HARDWARE STORE MAGISTRATE GRANTS AWARD EXEMPTIONS At the Magistrate's Court, Taupo, on Thursday, September 23, five Taupo storekeepers applied to Mr W. A. Harlow, S.M., for exemption from awards to enable them to remain open for business all day from Monday to Friday inclusive and until 1 p.m. on Saturdays. No objections were lodged by other business people. The applications were opposed by the Grocers' Assistants' Union and the Retail Shop Assistants' Union. The Court held that the applicants had established a case and all applications were granted.

Four applications already had a magisterial exemption which entitled them to remain open for the sale of groceries until 1 ptm. on Saturdays, but under the magistrate's order were required to close on Thursdays. These firms were Messrs. R. Casson and Co., Ltd.; W. Davies Ltd; Spencer Kilford and Co., Ltd.; and W. L. Haines Ltd. They applied for exemption from the proviso to the magistrate's order which required them to close on Thursdays, their applications entailing exemption from provisions of the Northern Industrial District Gfrocers' Assistants Award. The fifth applicant, Mr W. J. Stevens, applied for exemption from the Retail Shop Assistants' Award to enable him to open his hardware store until 1 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr H. Sproule appeared for the first four mentioned, and Mr Corry for Mr Stevens. Mr Chas. Greeves, of Hamilton, representing the Auckland Grocers' Assistants Union and the Retail Shop Assistants' Union, appeared in opposition to the applications. Mr John Shields Armstrong, draper, appeared and stated that he wished to object to Messrs R. Casson and Co's. application in so far as drapery goods were concerned. Mi4 Sproule submitted that his clients were seeking exemption from the Grocers' Assistants Award only. The Magistrate pointed out that Mt Armstrong could complain to the Labour Department inspector, in the event of the storekeeper selling drapery on a Saturday morning, when no doubt the matter would be investigated. Mr Armstrong then withdrew his objection to the application. Case For Applicants Opening the case for ihe first four applicants, Mr Sproule said that under appropriate sections of the Shops and Offices Amendment Act, the magistrate might grant the applications if he were of the opinion that the exemption applied for would not unfairly affect any other occupier of a shop, and if he were of the opinion that the exemption applied for was in the public interest. Mr Sproule said he understood no other grocers intended to object. Copies of the applications had been forwarded to the Master, Grocers' Association and they had advised by letter that they had no objection to make. The Grocers' Assistants' Union had stated that if the shops concerned did not open on Mondays until 1 p.m. they would not object. Mr Sproule submitted that three sections of the community were concerned, namely, (1) the general public; (2) the occupiers of the shops, who were concerned to make an adequate living; and (3) the shop assistants, who! did not desire to work unduly long hours. He submitted that the assistants were adequately protected by Section 3 of the Shops and Offices Amendment Act 1936 which limited hours to 40 per week, and in addition the award invariably prescribed the hours of work. In 1947, when magisterial exemption had been granted from th.e Grocers, Assistants Award to enable

the stores to open all day Saturday, closing all day Thursday, there had been five grocers stores and the population of Taupo had been about 748, the 1945 figures, an average oi about 150 people per store. In 1954 there were nine grocers stores serving a permament population of 1780, an average of about 200 per shop, and these figures did not take account of visitors. "A Sort Of Halo" In 1947 a sort of halo surrounded the five day week, but though the law had not changed public opinion had done so. All the shops sold newspapers, and all but one sold bread and it was inconvenient of they had to close half a day in the middle of the week. The shop assistants concerned had been approached and they strongly objected to closing Monday mornings and did not object to the shops remaining open all day Thursday. The shop occupiers could put one assistant off on Thursday afternoons, and so alternate assistants could have the whole Saturday off every fortnight. Robert Casson, called by Mr Sproule, gave evidence on the lines of Mr Sproule's statement as to numbers of shops and the population of the town. If the application were granted the two shop assistants would work 40 hours per week, and every alternate week have the full weekend off. The assistants were averse to the idea of closing on Monday mornings and were happy with the present arrangement and about the idea of working all day Thursday. Mr Greeves, cross examining, said he was concerned with how the arrangement would work in actual practice, with applicant operating a general store, selling a variety of general goods under one roof, and yet applying for exemption from one award only. How would witness operate the shop on Saturdays? Witness stated that he assumed the shop would be operated as were other shops under similar circumstances. Mr Greeves: You will agree this proposal will break down the five day week? Witness: The shops will be open but the assistants will not be working five and a half days. W. L. Haines, in evidence, said his two assistants would work the 40 hour week straight through the week and he and his wife would work on the Saturdays. To Mr Greeves, he stated that if the assistants worked on a Saturday in the summer they would be paid whatever rate the award required. Similar evidence was given by W. Davies and S. Kilford. Demand On Saturdays In opening the case for W. J. Stevens application, Mr Corry said applicant had been; in the business for 12 years, selling general household hardware. In evidence, applicant said he employed no assistants being in partnership with his son. Since Saturday had been made the weekly closing day he had had people applying for goods every Saturday. The average would be a dozen each Saturday. If the shop were open on Saturday mornings the number would definitely increase.

To Mr Greaves, witness said that if he had to employ stafT he would pay them in accordance with the award if they were worked on Saturday morning. Called to give evidence in support, Godfrey Taylor, boat-builder, referred to the requirements of boat owners, many of whom required goods at the week-ends. Mr Greeves said that the Unions affected were concerned because the town was growing, and, while not many assistants were employed now, more would. be in the future. Further, what happened •' in Taupo would set a precedent elsewhere and these cases would have an effect on the five day week. The award at present restricted the 40 hour week to the five week days, and over and above that grocers assistants could not be paid overtime for saies work. For these reasons the Union could not agree to thei proposed changes. He could not see how the proposal would work where the shops were selling a variety of goods and only sought exemption from the award covering sale of the one line. It had been argued that it was desirable in the public interest and that there was a demand for it, but

he submitted that the demand had only been created by shops, not necessarily the shops in Taupo, flouting the award provisions in the past. Giving the Court's decision, Mr Harlow stated that the applicants had established a case, and it appeared to the Court that it would be in the public interest that the previous exemption should be varied. This meant that they might be open all day Thursday, and would have to close at 1 p.m. on Saturday. Mr Corry's application on behalf of Mr Stevens would be similarly granted. In giving this decision, said the Magistrate, he was not considering any incidental consequences. As far as the Court was concerned he followed his predecessor's action. Whether it over-rode any award provisions he did not know, and that could be a matter for later determination.