Extended Trading Hours – More Retail Jobs? · Extended Trading Hours – More Retail Jobs? 137 Queensland, the State Government has legislated to regulate trading hours since the

133

Extended Trading Hours – More Retail Jobs? Robin Price Queensland University of Technology

There has been an ongoing battle in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission between large and small retailers over extended trading hours and in particular, Sunday trading. Large retailers have argued for longer trading hours and have stated that longer trading hours will result in increased levels of employment in the retail industry. Smaller retailers have argued that the result will be job losses within their stores as market share shifts to the large retail chains. This article sets out to establish the impact of extended trading on employment levels within a major retail chain. It uses a case study of several Queensland supermarkets that belong to a national Australian retail chain, to examine changes in employment as a result of the introduction of Sunday trading in Queensland during 2002. It demonstrates that, despite the claims of the major retail chains, extended trading does not necessarily equate with increased retail employment.

INTRODUCTION The Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 establishes that it is the responsibility of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) to set trading hours for retail stores in Queensland. The extension of trading hours has long been a contentious issue within the QIRC as large retail chains have generally been permitted to trade for fewer hours than smaller retailers. Essentially, employer associations

International Journal of Employment Studies, Vol. 13, No.1, April 2005

134 Robin Price

representing large retail chains, have attempted to extend the trading hours of large retail chains, and employer associations representing small retail businesses have attempted to minimise the hours of large retail chains. In support of their arguments for extended trading hours, large retailers have stated that if they are permitted to trade for longer hours this will result in increased levels of employment in the retail industry. Smaller retailers have generally argued in the reverse, that the result of allowing large chains extended trading will be a reduction in employment levels within small stores, as market share shifts to the large retail chains. This article examines the effect of an extension of trading hours on the level of employment within a large supermarket chain. The first part of this article briefly examines the debates on Sunday trading and briefly reviews the recent history of setting trading hours in Queensland. The second part of the article discusses the research methodology, while the third outlines the structure of employment within two stores in a large supermarket chain before and after the introduction of extended trading hours. In this instance the extension of trading hours was a result of the introduction of Sunday trading in the state of Queensland on 1 August 2002. By examining the employment composition within these stores before and after this event, it is possible to demonstrate that the number of employees within the two stores actually reduced over the period. In both cases, there was a reduction in the number of full‐time and casual employees, but an increase in the number of permanent part‐time employees. Additionally, there was a slight increase in the number of hours worked by part‐time employees and a reduction in the number of casual employees working longer hours. THE SUNDAY TRADING DEBATE In countries, and states within countries, that do not have Sunday trading it is not unusual for there to be hotly contested debates about trading on Sundays. These debates tend to focus on three main issues, the religious, economic and social grounds (Freathy and Sparks, 1995).

Extended Trading Hours – More Retail Jobs? 135

Those concerned with religious aspects argue that retail trade on Sundays leads to a decline in spiritual and moral values in the community and point out that those who want to worship should not be required to work. Often this line of argument also raises the issue of Sunday as ‘the Sabbath’ or ‘day of rest’ and identifies Sunday as a ‘special day’. Proponents of the opposing argument point out that, active practicing Christians are the minority and that Sunday worship and retail trading can co‐exist. In a similar vein, it is also asserted that Christian beliefs should not be foisted upon other religious groups (Donaldson, 1996:18). The debate over the social aspects of Sunday working centres on arguments that trading on Sundays is necessary in order to meet the needs of time poor consumers, particularly families where both parents work, and that Sunday trading allows families to shop together as a social activity (Cockburn 2003; Donaldson 1996). It is argued that Sunday working is voluntary and that working on Sundays may suit particular groups of workers, such as students, with commitments at other times of the week. Also, workers who work Sundays may then have time off during the week to spend with their family, helping in their children’s classroom or tuckshop. On the reverse side, critics say that retailers will coerce staff to work Sundays against their will and family relationships will be strained for retail workers (Freathy and Sparks, 1995). Additionally, it is difficult for workers with child care responsibilities to access formal childcare on weekends. The economic debate focuses on the effect of Sunday trading on the retailer and on employees. For the retailer, the perspective of large retailers differs from that of small independent retailers. Most states have allowed small stores to open, but restricted or precluded large retail chains from trading on Sundays. As a result, there are claims that allowing large retailers to trade on Sundays would lead to a decline in sales for small retailers and an increase in sales for large retail chains, and a corresponding increase in the proportion of market share held by large retailers (Margetts, 2005; Freathy and Sparks, 1995). There is some evidence to support these claims. For example, it is argued by the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (QRTSA) that following the introduction of seven‐day trading in Queensland in 2002,

136 Robin Price

many small independent retailers claim they have lost ‘up to 50 per cent of their Sunday trade with overall losses of up to 60 per cent’ (Margetts, 2005). From the perspective of the retail employee, it is argued that employees would receive penalty rates for working on Sundays and that this would mean a significant financial benefit to low‐paid retail workers (Freathy and Sparks, 1995). Again, it is also argued that penalty rates will reduce over a period of time and Sunday working will become ‘ordinary’ working time. There is some evidence of this in Australia where the certified agreements of major retail chains show evidence of a gradually broadening range of working hours on Sundays that attract ordinary rates of pay (Workplace Express, 2005). Employment aspects also feature prominently in the economic debates with claims of Sunday trading creating increased sales and increased employment, or conversely fewer sales and lower employment. Freathy and Sparks (1995: 476) state that ‘Sunday working adds perhaps 10 per cent additional hours per week on an extra day, as well as affecting shift and trading patterns on other days’. As such, assuming that Sunday trading results in increased sales for a store and not just a shift in trade from other days to Sundays, Sunday working should result in more employment within a store. This research sets out to establish the effect on employment of the introduction of Sunday trading within a large retail supermarket chain in Queensland. First though, the following section reviews the recent history of trading hours’ regulation in Queensland. THE RECENT HISTORY OF SETTING TRADING HOURS IN QUEENSLAND Regulation of trading hours is a State government responsibility and across Australia different State governments adopt different approaches. In New South Wales and Victoria, retail trading hours are largely deregulated and retail stores of any type can open twenty‐four hours a day, seven days a week except on Good Friday, Christmas Day and before 1pm on Anzac Day (Inside Retailing, 11 Nov 1996: 3). In


Queensland, the State Government has legislated to regulate trading hours since the Factories and Shops Act in 1900 (Howatson, 1998; Kingston, 1994). Currently, retail trading hours are set by the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990. This Act regulates trading hours according to a system of classifying retail outlets. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA), the union representing retail workers in the South East portion of Queensland, have pushed for this classification structure in order to prevent the flow‐on effects of long opening hours for some stores, like bakeries, having an impact on opening hours for the entire retail industry (Runciman, 1989). Three classifications of retail shops exist in Queensland: independent, exempt and non‐exempt shops. Independent Retail Shop An independent retail shop is one that is owned by an individual, partnership or private company; employs no more than twenty people in a shop at any one time, and, no more than sixty people in total if several stores exist in Queensland (Section 6 Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990). Section 17 of the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 stipulates that if an independent retail shop primarily sells food it has unrestricted trading hours. If the independent retail shop sells primarily non‐food products, it is required to close on Good Friday, Christmas Day and until 1pm on Anzac Day. Exempt Shops As outlined in section 5 of the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990, the exempt shop classification includes a list of around forty identifiable retail formats, loosely regarded as ‘essential’ services, such as food retailers, newsagents, petrol stations and hairdressers. Shops included in this classification have no restrictions on trading hours or the number of employees.

138 Robin Price

Non-Exempt Shops Under the definitions provided in the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990, a non‐exempt shop is one other than an exempt shop, independent retail shop, office or stall. The trading hours for non‐exempt retailers are set by a Full Bench of the QIRC (Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 s. 21(1)). However, prior to mid‐2002, the Full Bench could not decide trading hours for non‐exempt shops that were less than 8am to 9pm for Monday to Friday and 8am to 5pm for Saturday, unless the day in question was a public holiday (Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 s. 21(1A)). The result of this retailer classification system was that small independent and exempt operators were free to trade at will, while the large chains, classified as non‐exempt, faced restrictions on their trading hours. As a result, the large retailers, and the organisations representing their interests, have beaten an almost continuous path to the Commission arguing for variations to their trading hours. Under the terms of section 26 of the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990, when setting retail trading hours for non‐exempt retailers, the Commission is required to consider: a) the locality, or part thereof, in which the non‐exempt shop or

class of non‐exempt shop is situated; b) the needs of the tourist industry or other industry in such a

locality or part; c) the needs of an expanding tourist industry; d) the needs of an expanding population; e) the public interest, consumers’ interest, and business interest

(whether small, medium or large); f) the alleviation of traffic congestion; g) such other matters as the Industrial Commission considers

relevant . The result was that different localities had different trading times on the basis of circumstances specific to that location and that individual case. In 1988, the QIRC extended Saturday trading hours until 4pm for non‐exempt stores in metropolitan Brisbane (128 QGIG 174)1. Non‐


exempt stores within the City Heart Area of Brisbane gained Sunday trading between the hours of 10.30am and 4pm on Sundays in 1989 (131 QGIG 236). It was not, however, until 1 July 2000 that the QIRC allowed non‐exempt hardware stores to trade on Sundays between 8.30am and 4pm (164 QGIG 249). Other non‐exempt retail stores located in metropolitan Brisbane were not able to trade on Sundays at this time. On December 21, 2001, following an application by the Retailers Association of Queensland Limited (RAQ), the QIRC handed down a decision that introduced Sunday trading hours for the area defined as the City of Brisbane and set a commencement date of 1 July 2002 (169 QGIG 48). This enlarged the geographic boundaries of the area classed as Brisbane to include all those suburbs that fell within the Brisbane City Council area. There was a particularly negative reaction to the Commission’s decision from retailers located outside this area, but still within the Brisbane suburban sprawl, who considered themselves disadvantaged (Nuttall, 2002). The decision also led to a situation where various regions in close proximity to Brisbane, such as Ipswich, Logan and Pine Rivers, had inconsistent trading laws and it was felt that this would be confusing for consumers as well as for businesses. The political flak from this decision, prompted the Queensland Government to intervene. Amendments were made to the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 so that it became mandatory for the Commission to consider: h) the likely impact of the order on employment; i) the view of any local government in whose area the order is

likely to have an impact; j) such other matters as the Industrial Commission considers

relevant (s.26). This was in addition to the existing matters for consideration. In addition, section 31B (5 and 6) confirmed the role of the QIRC in deciding trading hours for non‐exempt shops throughout Queensland, but at the same time determined that the commission ‘must not reduce the hours of 9am to 6pm on Sundays and public holidays in the south east Queensland area’. The resulting legislation, Trading (Allowable

140 Robin Price

Hours) Amendment Act 2002 (Qld), introduced Sunday trading in South East Queensland from 1 August 2002. As a result of these changes to trading hours, post August 2002, supermarkets and grocery chains in the South East Queensland area trade from 8am to 9pm on Mondays to Fridays, 8am to 5pm on Saturdays and 9am to 6pm on Sundays (Trading Hours‐ Non‐Exempt Shops Trading by Retail‐ State). In other words, retail trading hours were increased by 12 per cent from seventy‐four hours per week to eighty‐three hours per week. This intervention by the State Government did not, however, result in much change to the number of trading hours’ variation cases brought before the QIRC. In 2004, some of the applications included an application for continuous pre‐Christmas trade at Indooroopilly Shopping Centre (177 QGIG 677); continuous pre‐Christmas trading at Chermside Shopping Centre (176 QGIG 674); extended trade for a Caravan and Camping Show (175 QGIG 1099); redefinition of the area constituting Cairns for the purposes of trading hours (176 QGIG 634); and the area classed as Townsville (176 QGIG 623); as well as inconsistencies in the trading hours applicable to hardware outlets (175 QGIG 1099). Each time an application for a variation in trading hours is made, the parties need to make a case, based on the clauses at section 26 of the Act. GROUNDS FOR CHANGES TO TRADING HOURS As outlined earlier, section 26 of the Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 sets out the matters which the QIRC must consider when making trading hours orders for non‐exempt retailers. As a result, each time the parties head to the commission, the arguments are largely the same and echo those contained in Sunday trading debates elsewhere. Those parties in favour of the extension of trading hours attempt to establish that there is a demand for the extended hours and that the effect on the economy, on businesses of varying sizes, and on society in general, will be positive. Those against the application, attempt to demonstrate that none of these benefits exist. Generally, it is the Retailers’ Association of Queensland (RAQ), representing the large retail chains, that mounts


the applications since they are the ones whose trading hours have been curtailed by the decisions of the commission. The Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, whose members are smaller independent and exempt retailers, usually oppose applications as extending the trading hours of their competitors is perceived as harmful to small business interests. In most instances, the QIRC is asked to make a judgement on the effects of an action that has not yet occurred, therefore trading hours applications tend to involve a deal of supposition and conflicting often unsubstantiated evidence. One of the aspects that the commission is required to consider is the effect on employment of any extension to trading hours. In 169 QGIG 48 at 64, a case in which Coles, a major retail chian, applied for extended trading hours for its inner city Coles Express store, the Full Bench cites the QRTSA argument that allowing Coles extended hours will result in a shift in trade away from smaller retailers to Coles. The QRTSA argued that ‘the shift in market share will not have any major increases in employment within the area, simply creating a subsequent shift in employment from small business to large business’ (169 QGIG 48 at 64). As highlighted by the commission, purported increases in employment cited by the RAQ and major employers in this case are estimates. For example, in 172 QGIG 542 at 543, the Full Bench cites Mr Ewing, the Area Manager for Coles Supermarkets Queensland, who estimates that by commencing trading at 6am on weekdays and Saturdays and ceasing later on weekends, ‘an additional 200 hours of work per week would be available, which would, in the first instance, be offered to Myer Centre Coles Express employees’. In the same case, the Full Bench of the Commission stated:

Coles could have provided ‘appropriate statistical material’. It had it within its power to provide the Full Bench with actual employment statistics both prior to the granting of an extension of hours at the Edward Street Coles Express store and the employment statistics for some period after the granting of that extension of hours, for example, did the 1998 decision of this Commission result in an overall increase in hours and/or did it result in any new jobs being created. Those figures were not provided (172 QGIG 542 at 544).

142 Robin Price

This difficulty associated with ascertaining the effect of extended trading on employment is further iterated by the Full Bench of the Commission:

We are unable to ascertain whether, on prior occasions, we have had any hard statistics put to us with regard to real employment growth in non‐exempt stores when trading hours have been enlarged (169 QGIG 48 at 64).

This article goes some way towards remedying that situation. The following section examines the impact of extended trading, and Sunday trading in particular, on employment levels within two stores in one of Australia’s largest supermarket chains. This organisation has been given the pseudonym FoodCorp. It will be shown that extended trading hours do not necessarily result in increased overall employment levels within large retailers, such as supermarkets. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This research was undertaken as part of a doctoral study into labour usage strategies within supermarkets. The research took place across three stores within the one organisation between mid 2000 and late 2003. A variety of research methods were employed. Twenty two managers were interviewed, with store managers and regional HR managers being interviewed at least three times each over the course of the research. Ten employees were interviewed, and 272 employees were surveyed about their working experience with the organisation. Additionally, an extensive range of the organisation’s documentation was provided for analysis. This documentation included employee schedule reports for each of the three stores for a week in June or July 2002 and a week in June 2003. Of the three stores, one had seven day trading throughout the research period and is therefore excluded from this discussion. The other two stores commenced Sunday trading during the research period


THE STRUCTURE OF EMPLOYMENT IN FOOD CORP FoodCorp is a major supermarket chain with stores across Australia. The chain used industrial engineers to calculate the number of labour hours allocated to each store. The industrial engineer factored in a range of variables when setting staffing levels: wages, mix of permanent full‐time and part‐time staff, productivity, competitive nature of the market, services offered in the store and sales performance. This research examines the result of this process within two Queensland stores, referred to here as Westside and Southside. Westside was located in a relatively affluent outer Western suburb of Brisbane, while Southside was in a low socio‐economic area in the Southern suburbs of Brisbane. Westside store was one of the busiest trading stores in South East Queensland. Patterns of trade were quite stable, and quite predictable, which the store manager attributed to the general affluence of the area’s residents and the strength of the marketing plan (Manager 3, Interview 23 July 2002). This store also had a petrol site, which the store manager believed was a great tool for smoothing fluctuations in trade. The advent of a petrol site had increased the store’s turnover by 5 per cent (Manager 3, Interview 23 July 2002). The petrol site was managed by the supermarket as a separate department, but is excluded from this study. In July 2002, the store’s pattern of trade was: Monday (14%); Tuesday (12%); Wednesday (13%); Thursday (19%); Friday (18%); and Saturday (24%) (Manager 3, Interview 23 July 2002). The store had a salaries to sales percentage in the ‘low 7s but ran on less than this’ (Manager 3, Interview 23 July 2002). The salaries to sales percentage was the total dollar value of weekly wages expressed as a percentage of weekly sales. Westside had 233 employees included on the Employee Schedule Report, or staff roster, for the week from Monday 8 July 2002 to Sunday 14 July 2002 and 4744 hours of rostered labour. Of these 233 employees, twelve permanent workers and five casual workers were taking annual leave or were otherwise unavailable to work during the week studied.

144 Robin Price

It should be stressed that total labour hours can be allocated to individual employees in a myriad of combinations. For example, 4 744 hours of labour could be 125 staff working a thirty‐eight‐hour week, or at the extreme, 4 744 staff working one hour each. This article does not, therefore, argue that the structure of employment that existed in this organisation, both prior to and after the introduction of Sunday trading, is necessarily generalisable to other retail organisations. However, given the size of FoodCorp and its role as a major employer within the supermarket sector of the retail industry, what happens in FoodCorp exerts considerable influence over the structure of employment in the sector as a whole and is therefore important. The structure of employment in Westside in 2002 is outlined in Table 1. Of the store’s employees, 106 (45%) were employed on a casual basis, forty‐six (20%) as permanent part‐time and eighty‐one (35%) as permanent full‐time employees. There were ninety‐eight male employees (42%) and 135 female employees (58%). Nearly half the store’s employees (45%) were under twenty‐one years of age and subject to junior rates of pay. Table 1: Total Employees Westside, 2002

Male

Casual Female Casual

Male PPT

Female PPT

Male FT

FemaleFT Total %

Age 15 4 5 9 4 Age 16 4 11 15 6 Age 17 4 17 1 22 9 Age 18 7 10 3 1 1 22 9 Age 19 3 6 1 1 2 3 16 7 Age 20 6 3 1 2 6 2 20 9 Age 21 + 13 13 11 26 32 34 129 55 Total 41 65 16 30 41 40 233 100 CASUAL 106 PPT 46 FT 81 Source: Employee Schedule Report Westside 2002 By June 2003, Sunday trading had been operating for almost a year and the store’s pattern of trade had changed to reflect this. Sunday trading in this store was from 9am until 6pm and trade had moved from


Tuesday, Thursday and especially Friday and Saturday into Sundays (Manager 3, Interview 10 June 2003). The Store Manager estimated that the pattern of trade was: Monday (14%); Tuesday (10%); Wednesday (12%); Thursday (15%); Friday (14%); Saturday (20%) and Sunday (12%)2 (Manager 3, Interview 10 June 2003). The salary to sales percentage remained in the low 7s (Manager 3, Interview 10 June 2003). The Store Manager did not disclose whether sales had increased, but since the total hours of labour allocated to the store reflected the value of sales, it would be reasonable to assume that this was the case. Table 2: Total Employees Westside, 2003

Male


Male PPT

Female PPT

Male FT

FemaleFT Total %

AGE 15 5 5 1 11 5 Age 16 8 7 1 16 7 Age 17 4 12 1 3 1 21 10 Age 18 4 11 1 2 2 20 10 Age 19 4 3 1 1 3 2 14 6 Age 20 3 1 1 1 2 4 12 6 Age 21 + 12 9 10 29 36 20 116 56 Total 43 51 15 40 44 33 226 100 CASUAL 94 PPT 55 FT 77 Source: Employee Schedule Report Westside 2003 The advent of longer trading hours had little impact on the structure of employment within the Westside store, however, overall staff numbers had dropped slightly from 233 employees to 226 employees (refer to Table 2). Of the 226 employees included on the Employee Schedule Report for the week Monday 2 June 2003 to Sunday 8 June 2003, ten permanent workers and six casual workers were on annual leave or otherwise unavailable to work. This roster scheduled 4 811 hours of labour for the store, an increase of sixty‐seven hours (1.4%) over the 2002 figure. Of the total employees on the roster, including those absent, seventy‐seven (34%) were permanent full‐time, fifty‐five (24%) were permanent part‐time and ninety‐four (42%) were casuals. This represented a slight increase in the number of workers with permanent

146 Robin Price

employment status over the 2002 figures. A sizeable proportion of the store’s employees (44%) were under twenty‐one years of age and receiving junior rates of pay. The gender mix remained similar with 55 per cent female employees and 45 per cent male employees. STRUCTURE OF EMPLOYMENT IN SOUTHSIDE Southside was located within an uncovered sprawling shopping centre with several blocks of shops within a large car park. The Southside store did not have a covered entry so the storefront was exposed to the elements. This meant that customers were inclined to shop elsewhere on days when it was raining (Manager 2, Interview 8 June 2001). Southside was also located in the most competitive marketplace of any of the stores studied, with the three major chains and an independent supermarket all located within walking distance in the centre. Southside was physically the smallest of the stores studied. Within the store, weekly sales figures fluctuated according to the strength of the competition’s promotional offers, pension days and the weather (Manager 2, Interview 8 June 2001). The store manager attributed this to the fact that:

In this area people have a high disposable income which translates as people dispose of all their income. There’s a heavy reliance on pensions. Dole day used to be Wednesday for everyone but now people on the dole can choose which day they receive their payment and this seems to have made an impact on trading patterns (Manager 2, Interview 18 June 2002).

The intensity of competition was a major concern for this store because it was so easy for customers to walk from one store to the next and check prices. Southside’s pattern of trade in June 2002 was: Monday (13%); Tuesday (11%); Wednesday (15%); Thursday (21%); Friday (19%) and Saturday (21%) (Manager 2, Interview 18 June 2002). The store operated on a salaries‐to‐sales percentage of around 7.6 per cent. When


interviewed, just prior to the introduction of Sunday trading, the store manager was holding off employing any new staff (Manager 2, Interview 18 June 2002). The reason for this was that the Voluntary Work – Extended Trading Hours – Non‐Exempt Shops – Award – State, enacted on the 10 May 2002, stipulated that all staff employed prior to the introduction of extended trading hours could not be compulsorily required to work on Sundays. All employees recruited after 1 August 2002 could, however, be required to work on Sundays. Southside had 165 employees included on the Employee Schedule Report for the week of Monday 17 June 2002 to Sunday 23 June 2002, totalling 3 582 labour hours (refer to Table 3). Of these 165 employees, two permanent employees and seven casual employees were taking annual leave or otherwise unavailable but are included in the total employee figures. Of the store’s employees, eighty‐nine employees (54%) were employed as casuals, thirty employees (18%) were permanent part‐time and forty‐six (28%) were permanent full‐time. The store workforce was also heavily feminised, with 108 female employees (65%) and fifty‐seven male employees (35%). Over half (53%) of the store’s total employee complement were under twenty‐one years of age. Table 3: Total Employees Southside, 2002

Male


Male PPT

Female PPT

Male FT

Female FT Total %

Age 15 4 11 15 9 Age 16 8 18 1 27 16 Age 17 9 8 2 1 20 12 Age 18 2 5 2 1 1 11 7 Age 19 4 5 2 1 12 7 Age 20 1 1 2 1 Age 21 + 5 10 2 21 20 20 78 47 Total 32 57 2 28 23 23 165 100 CASUAL 89 PPT 30 FT 46 Source: Employee Schedule Report Southside 2002

148 Robin Price

In the week of Monday 16 June 2003 to Sunday 22 June 2003, the number of employees on the Employee Schedule Report had reduced slightly to 153 employees, in line with the pattern in Westside (refer to Table 4). The number of scheduled labour hours had decreased from 3 582 in 2002 to 3 547 in 2003; a reduction of thirty‐five hours (1%) of labour, therefore it is assumed that sales had decreased slightly. Sunday trading now accounted for 10 per cent of the store’s weekly sales (Manager 21, Interview 27 June 2003). Sunday sales had come from reduced sales on Monday, Thursday and Saturday (Manager 21, Interview 27 June 2003). The salaries to sales percentage had also been reduced to 7.3 per cent. Of the 153 employees on the roster in 2003, forty‐three (28%) were permanent full‐time; a proportion unchanged from 2002. However, the proportion of the workforce employed on a casual basis reduced from 54 per cent in 2002 to 47 per cent in 2003 (refer to Tables 3 and 4). The percentage of employees working on a permanent part‐time basis increased accordingly from 18 per cent to 25 per cent. The percentage of female employees remained constant at 65 per cent of the employee population, while the proportion of young employees reduced slightly from 53 per cent in 2002 to 51 per cent in 2003. Table 4: Total Employees Southside, 2003

Male


Male PPT

Female PPT

Male FT

Female FT Total %

AGE 15 1 2 3 2 Age 16 3 8 11 7 Age 17 5 15 20 13 Age 18 8 7 1 1 17 11 Age 19 3 2 1 6 2 14 9 Age 20 2 3 1 4 1 2 13 8 Age 21 + 4 9 3 22 19 18 75 49 Total 26 46 5 33 22 21 153 100 CASUAL 72 PPT 38 FT 43 Source: Employee Schedule Report Southside 2003


To summarise, this section identified employment patterns within the FoodCorp supermarket division and the stores studied. The numbers of employees in each of the stores declined over the period 2002 to 2003 (refer to Tables 1 to 4). In Westside, the total number of employees fell from 233 to 226 and in Southside from 165 to 153 (7%). Therefore, the overall impact of the introduction of Sunday trading on employment was to reduce the number of people in employment. The evidence suggests that the firm deliberately tried to increase the number of working hours for individual employees and did so by reducing overall levels of employment. In part, this was a result of the organisation’s expressed commitment to permanent full‐time and part‐time employment which resulted in longer hours jobs for which fewer employees were required. As well as a reduction in the number of employees there was a shift in the employment composition of the workforce. In 2002, these FoodCorp stores operated with a casual workforce comprising between 45 per cent and 54 per cent of the total workforce (refer to Tables 1 to 4). In line with the reduction in overall employment levels, the proportion of casual employees declined over the period 2002 to 2003. In 2003, the levels of casual employment were between 42 per cent and 47 per cent. This change suggests that the organisation was taking steps to reduce or limit the numbers of casual employees. In Westside and Southside, which were not trading on Sundays in 2002, the reduction in casual employment appears to have led to an increase in part‐time employment in 2003. Another significant change apparent in the stores examined was a shift in the structure of the workforce under twenty‐one years of age. The overall proportion of young workers remained constant at around 45 per cent for Westside and 53 per cent for Southside. This demonstrates that where employees left the organisation, younger, and consequently cheaper, workers were recruited to replace them. This was also the case with the composition of the youth segment of the workforce where fifteen to seventeen‐year‐old workers dominated. The pattern of youth employment represented a ‘bell curve’ with numbers peaking between sixteen and eighteen years of age and then tapering off towards twenty‐one years of age. As young people got older and

150 Robin Price

therefore more expensive, fewer of them were employed as casuals. Some of these workers may have found another job and left the organisation, while those whose performance within FoodCorp was deemed acceptable appear to have been transferred to permanent employment. Table 5: Hours Worked by Employment Status, Westside

Hours Casual 2002

Casual 2003

PPT 2002

PPT 2003

Full-time2002

Full-time2003

0 5 6 3 5 9 5 1 to 5 32 22 6 to 10 35 26 1 11 to 15 16 29 14 11 16 to 20 13 10 11 14 21 to 25 2 1 9 12 1 2 26 to 30 2 4 6 10 5 31 to 35 3 6 2 36 to 40 1 1 1 39 42 41 to 45 1 8 9 46 to 50 6 7 51 to 55 6 5 56 to 60 1 Total 106 94 46 55 81 77 Source: Employee Schedule Report Westside 2002, 2003 Essentially though, after Sunday trading was introduced in 2003 there were fewer workers within the two stores, but they were working longer hours than they were in mid 2002 and they were more likely to be employed on a permanent basis. A more detailed examination of the working time arrangements in Westside supports this assertion. The number of casual employees working short hours of between one and five hours per week and six and ten hours per week diminished over the period 2002 to 2003 (refer to Table 5). There was a corresponding increase in the number of casual employees working between eleven and fifteen hours per week. Similarly, fewer employees were working between twenty‐six and thirty hours, while the number working thirty‐one to thirty‐five hours grew. The pattern of employees working in


excess of thirty‐six hours per week remained largely unchanged between 2002 and 2003. When the distribution of working hours across employees in 2002 was examined, employment status correlated with working hours. In general, casual workers work shorter hours. Westside had sixty‐seven casual employees working less than ten hours per week, thirty‐two of whom received only one shift of between three and five hours in the week examined. By 2003, this figure had been reduced to forty‐eight employees working less than ten hours per week. There was a significant increase in the numbers of casual workers doing between eleven and fifteen hours per week, in part, as a result of the large number of permanent employees taking annual leave at this time. This was also the situation with some permanent part‐time employees who had been ‘flexed up’ to longer hours’ contracts in order to cover staff absences. Table 6: Hours Worked by Employment Status, Southside

Hours Casual 2002

Casual 2003

PPT 2002

PPT 2003

Full-time2002

Full-time2003

0 9 2 1 1 2 1 to 5 15 7 1 6 to 10 32 26 1 2 11 to 15 11 22 4 7 16 to 20 13 11 3 8 21 to 25 5 8 5 26 to 30 1 4 6 7 2 1 31 to 35 2 4 7 2 6 36 to 40 1 2 1 28 24 41 to 45 1 5 46 to 50 2 3 51 to 55 6 4 56 to 60 3 Total 89 72 30 38 46 43 Source: Employee Schedule Report Southside 2002, 2003 The working time arrangements in Southside followed the pattern established by Westside with an increase in the number of working

152 Robin Price

hours for most employees. Again, there was a reduction in the overall number of workers on short hours’ contracts of less than ten hours. The number of employees undertaking between eleven and fifteen hours work per week grew as did the number of employees on these hours with permanent employment (refer to Table 6). FoodCorp appear in both cases to be using the opportunity provided by the introduction of Sunday trading to create longer hours’ jobs for workers. The number of employees working between thirty‐one to thirty‐five hours per week and forty‐one to forty‐five hours per week grew while the number working between thirty‐six to forty hours per week fell (refer to Table 6). This indicated that fewer staff were on a standard thirty‐eight‐hour‐week contract and that the store had decided to deploy its available labour more flexibly by adopting a four‐day/six‐day roster. The certified agreement provides for the averaging of working hours of permanent part‐time and full‐time employees over a four‐week period thus enabling the organisation to have some flexibility to deal with variations in trade and coverage for other full‐time employees who are entitled to a rostered day off. In most instances, full‐time employees averaged at least forty‐five hours per week as standard, but this took no standard form and it was not uncommon to see full‐time employees rostered for between thirty and fifty‐five hours in any given week. Management averaged significantly longer hours across all the stores. The Store Manager of Southside generally met staff absences and fluctuations in trade by using casual employees or placing employees on fixed term contracts (Manager 21, Interview 27 June 2003). He was loathe to ‘flex up’ permanent part‐time employees ‘because of the clause in the agreement which says they are entitled to new permanent hours based on their average for any year’ (Manager 21, Interview 27 June 2003). Therefore, permanent part‐time employees were perceived as less flexible overall. When the hours worked per employee were compared across the stores there were some marked similarities in the patterns of employment. In each case there were a large group of employees providing between six and twenty hours of labour per week and another sizeable group providing thirty‐six to forty hours labour per


week, with comparatively few employees in between. The fact that this pattern of employment was largely consistent across the stores in very different markets suggested that FoodCorp structured its employment in this way deliberately. So, what was the effect of Sunday trading on employment? In the case of FoodCorp, the extension of trading hours on Sundays provided the Westside store with a slight increase in overall trade and hence labour hours. Employment, in the form of labour hours, increased by sixty‐seven hours a week, or 1.4 per cent after the introduction of Sunday trading. In the case of the Southside store, trade and labour hours decreased by thirty‐five labour hours after the introduction of Sunday trading. Clearly it was not just the number of hours that a store traded that influenced its total labour hours. Some stores were in better locations with less competition and higher sales. These stores required more labour. Likewise, even if a store needed more labour hours in order to staff an extra day’s trade, there was no guarantee that this would mean more employment in the form of more workers. In the case of the Westside and Southside stores examined in FoodCorp, neither store recruited more workers after the introduction of Sunday trading. In fact, the decline in the overall number of workers was all the more notable since the stores were postponing employing new workers in 2002 in order to avoid the requirements of the Voluntary Work – Extended Trading Hours – Non‐Exempt Shops – Award – State. Therefore, the stores had lower staff numbers in 2002 than they might have ordinarily. Sunday trading did not create more jobs in FoodCorp. Sunday trading, and the ensuing dispersal of trade across a greater number of trading hours, did allow the firm to increase the number of hours worked by individual workers though. The total number of casual workers fell between 2001 and 2002, but those casual workers who remained were working longer hours. The numbers of full‐time workers also fell, but the number of part‐time workers increased along with their working hours. Sunday trading therefore appears to have created part‐time jobs with longer hours and therefore part‐time jobs that pay more, but at the same reduced the number of workers with full‐time jobs. There is no guarantee though, that this situation will be

154 Robin Price

replicated in other stores within FoodCorp, or other retailers. There are too many variables in the equation. This research showed that it was not possible to state categorically that the employment effects of Sunday trading were either positive, or negative. Indeed, the number of hours allocated to labour is a function of a complex range of factors, of which, trading hours is but one. This research showed that the effect of extended trading on employment within large retail chains was minimal. Further research needs to be undertaken to judge whether the introduction of Sunday trading on small retailers was particularly detrimental, as claimed by the QRTSA. CONCLUSION The findings of this research refute the assertions of the large retail chains and their employer associations that extended trading, in the form of Sunday trading, will result in increased employment. In Westside, after Sunday trading was introduced there was an increase in total labour hours for the store, but not more employees. In Southside, after Sunday trading was introduced there was a decrease in total labour hours and in the number of employees. In the case of the two stores examined, Sunday trading did not result in increased numbers of employees within stores, although it did appear to have created longer hours jobs for some part‐time employees. Clearly the number of hours that a store trades influences the level of employment within a store, but longer trading hours did not necessarily mean increased employment. NOTES 1. QGIG is the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette in which all decisions

of the QIRC appear. In this instance, 128 QGIG 174, refers to Volume 128 of the QGIG at page 174.

2. These figures are estimates that add to 97 per cent only.


REFERENCES Cockburn, M. (2003), ‘On any Sunday’, Consuming Interest, Winter, 15 and 17. Donaldson, M. (1996), Taking our Time: Remaking the Temporal Order,

Nedlands, University of Western Australia Press. Freathy, P. and Sparks, L. (1995), ‘The Employment Structure of the Sunday

Labour Market in Retailing: A Comparative Analysis of DIY and Grocery Superstores in Scotland and in England and in Wales’, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 27, 471‐487.

Howatson, R. (1998), They’ll Always Be Back: a Chronicle of Events Relating to

Industrial Relations Tribunals in Queensland, Brisbane, Industrial Registrar, Industrial Court and Industrial Relations Commission.

Inside Retailing, (1996), ‘New Trading Hours Could Bring 13 000 More Jobs,

November 11, 3. Kingston, B. (1994), Basket, Bag and Trolley: A History of Shopping in Australia,

Melbourne, Oxford University Press. Margetts, D. (2005), ‘NO Case – Extended Sunday Shopping’ from

http://www.mp.wa.gov.au/margetts/issues/rth/rth.htm, accessed 19 April 2005.

Nuttall, G. (2002), ‘Second Reading Speech, Trading (Allowable Hours)

Amendment Bill 2002’, March, 6 2002. Runciman, C. (1989), Retail. New Brooms: Restructuring and Training Issues for

Women in the Service Sector, Department of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra, AGPS.

Trading (Allowable Hours) Act 1990 Trading (Allowable Hours) Amendment Act 2002. Trading (Allowable Hours) Amendment Bill 2002.

156 Robin Price

Voluntary Work – Extended Trading Hours – Non‐Exempt Shops – Award – State Workplace Express (2005), ‘3.5% Annual Pay Rise, Two Years Unpaid Parental

Leave at Coles Supermarkets’, Tuesday 19th April 2005.

Documents

Extended Trading Hours – More Retail Jobs? · Extended Trading Hours – More Retail Jobs? 137 Queensland, the State Government has legislated to regulate trading hours since the