RATES OF WAGES RAISED.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20093, 24 November 1930, Page 15

RATES OF WAGES RAISED.

DECISION BY COURT. WARNING FOR FUTURE. [THE PBESS Special Service.l WELLINGTON, November 22. Although the Court of Arbitration increased wages in the award of the Marlborough Building Trade.? industrial Dispute, it made it clear that the wages fixed by the last award in 1 were below those at present in force in other parts of Now Zealand, and pointed out that there appeared to be 110 reason why the minimum rates of wages in Marlborough should be less than those paid to workers in the building trades in other districts. At the same time it issued a statement that it might ue nocc.».«i.v the Ccrurfc in th-3 future to fix other standards of wages than those now generally prevailing, taking the view that the prices of primary products and the cost of living were lower than when the last award was made. Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative on the Court) contended that there could be no justification for increasing the rates of wages. He expressed his views in an opinion in which he dissented from the majority of the Court. In a memorandum to the award, his Honour. Mr Justice Frazer, states: "There is at present no building trades award in force in the Marlborough district, but the wages fixed by the last award in 1924 were somewhat lower than those now in force in other parts of New Zealand. There appears to be no reason why the minimum rates of wages payable to workers in the building trades in Marlborough should be relatively less than thoso paid to workers in other trades in the same district, of actually less than those paid to workers in the 1 building trades in other districts. It cannot be suggested that Marlborough is in any way less prosperous than other small districts and sub-districts to which the Court's standard minimum wage rates are applicable, and it is certain that

!if the present had been mad* at the same time as the building I trades awards were made in other disI tricts, the minimum rates wotild have •' been the same as in those districts. It may, erf course, be necessary for the Court in the future to fix otfeec standards of wages than those _ ao«r generally prevailing, but, t until * general policy has been decided upon, it is thought that what amounts td * special departure in one district should not be made—not, at all events, unless exceptional circumstances are proved to exist in respect of a particular trade or group of trades in_ that district. In a dissenting opinion Mr Prim® says: "The figures quoted at the hearing regarding the nature, quantity and value of the production of Marlborough showed oonclusivelv that the greater part of the income of the Province is derived from pastoral production, and that it has decreased considerably in recent vears, the prices or primary products and the cost of living both being lower now than when tile last award was made. There can he no .justification for increasing the rates of wftges. It is tru© that th© rates awarded are the Court's standard rates for the various classes or labour, but the circumstances in this case warrant a departure from standard rates. Rigidity of practice, exemplified by a failure to recognise alterations in . general conditions ana variations between different dt=trfcf" ; is the chief factor in Making the operations of the Court press hardy on trade and industry, tending to rather than assist recovery trom the depression and tinemployment.