No Wage Increase For Watersiders

Chronicle (Levin), 30 March 1949, Page 6

No Wage Increase For Watersiders

Press Associdtion )

Failure To Establish Case For Extra £1 Weekly

(Per

WELLINGTON, March 29. "After careful consideration of the submissions made to' the Authority on behalf of,the New Zeaiand Waterside Workers' Union in support of its claim for o*e shilling an hour increase in the basic rate of pay, the Waterfront Industry ^uthority is Satisfied that those submissii&iis fail to^egtkbiish a case for any increase Beyond the interim increase of 2$d per hour which came into operation on February 14," says a judgment given today by the Waterfront, Jndustry Authority and signed by : Judge D. J. Dalglish. '" ^ a ne Union representatives on tue Authority (MeWg Barpes and Hill) re corded their dissent from the decision and from the terms of the memorandum attached to the decision. The Authority announced on February 9 that it wouid give further consideration to the union 's claims for an increase of one shilling an hour on the 'basic wage. The memorandum with the decision deals in detail with each of the union 's submissions.

' The, imion 's claim for an increase was based on the main groupd that the increase was necessary to restore the position of watersiders to that which they enjoyed in 1938. The first argu--ment put forward in support of that ground was that the position of salary and wage-earnefs'^.relation to that of other incdme'group^- as disclosed by official figures relating to the national' income had deteriofated by 8 per cent. The Authority 's judgment said the following facts emerged from an examination of the estimateS of national income to which the union 's submissions referred : A: National income was regarded as including pay and allowances of the Armed Forces. B: National income was regarded as including Social Security benefits and pensions, a large portion of which was received by wage and salary-earners. C: National income was regarded as including the rental value of. owneroccupied houses. D: Accruals to balances of the Primary Produce Stabilisation Accouuts,

Which were not distributed to producers, were treated as income. It jvas clear, therefore, that considefation of the movements in the relativjj positibns of wage and salary- earnerp on the one hand and recipients of other income on the other hand could not be $egun until adjustments had been madje td'deal with those factors. Further, it might well - be argued that the table' which should be considered was not the table which had been quoted by the union, but the table which related to priyate disposable income after tlie deduction of tSxiss. The latter table presente$ a slightly different pieture. - ' ' Ev'en if it were possible to malce adjustments in relation to the abovemeutioned factors to show more truly ihe relationship between the income oi'wage.'aiid \and the income of other Ipersqns' during the ten: years covered byfhe- estimates thei'e Would still be further calculations to be uiade to ascertain. the -present position, ' ' the judgmeift continued. ' ' Such factors as the full effect on wage and salary-earners of the wage increase •granted at. October 1, 1947, and the fsffect on the recipients of other income of the alteraition of the exchange rate made in August, .1948, would have to be taken into account. The need to make the various adjustments indieated shows how unsatisfactory it would be' to adopt statistics as to the nationaj income as a basis for adjusting wages. "Another aspect which would require to Be considered was what period would be adopted as the base from which to make oalculations. The union 's case assumed the year 1938-39 to be the proper base' to be adopted, presumably because that was the first year in respeet to which* official estimates of the

national income were'3 published. No argument has been submitted as to why that year should Be adopted as the base. , "From the monthly Abstract .of Statistics for December, 1948, it would have appeared that in 1938 and 1939 retail priees and export prices were below the average for the period 192630, while 'in 1938 and 1939 the weekly moniey wage rates were above the aver'age for the period 1926-30. That would seem to indieate that the year' 1938-39 would not be a proper period to adopt as the base used for the apportionment of the national income. During the period April 1, 1931, to March 3i, 1935, wages. syid salary represented a much higher percentage of the national income than the percentage claimed for by the union basecLon -the year 1938-39. ' 1 There was no method suggested. by the union whereby any lump sum to which wage and salary-earners generally might be fofind to be entitled, for the increased income was to be con- _ . n

verted m respect oi tlie waterside workers into a speeific amount per hour by way of increase in wages. Without a more cogent argument than that submitted the Authority was not prepared to agree that it was possible to argue from estimates covering the period of ten years to March. 31, 1948, that a partieular class of wage-earners was now twelve months later entitled to an increase of so much hourly. "The union 's second argument was that under the cobpeiative contracting system as pperated By thq Waterfront Industry" Oommission thB '''waterside worker receiyed lessitthan. he woula have been receiving if the employers' proposals made in 1938T for a new award ou a piecework basis had been operating. The Authority found that the argument ,/failed because the proposals put forward in the course of the submissions to the Arbitration Court were put forward for the purpose of getting an agreement between the parties or assisting the Court, and once the pro posals were rejected they could not subsequently be accepted. "The union 's third argument was that the watersiders' hourly rates were maximum rates, while in. the niajoritjof industries the award rates were minimum rates, and in those industries the employer has to pay. more. than award rates for labour or go without.

"The Authority said there was no proof as tp; the- up|nber of industries in wMich=p'ay#ients above'iawa.Fd^rhtes had been made or- as to.the extent to which they had': beeb. matle. .The Authority could not grant an increase of wages me.rely on the , ground that it was necessary for the. puTpoge of maintaining the., proper . ,-relationship between waterside workers and the wages of other workers who are receiving unlawful payments. nThe third argument, therefore, failed..r,-i . . " The fourth largument- also . f ailed. Be-. eause the Waterfront Industry Authority was not . coucerned to see that any . partieular relationship was maintained between the wages of New Zeaiand ^waterside t workers^ and the wages of, waterside workers "i'n any other couii' •try.'f The fifth argument by' the union was tliat the wa'tersid6' woricers ' wage rates should be computdd on the principle of excluding earnings obtained by overtime and from special rates. The judgment said when the Waterfront Control Commission made its first order in 1940 it had fixed the wage rate at 6d an hour in exceSs of the standard hourly rate prescribed for unskilled workers and oue penny an hour in ex;cess of the standard wage for skilled workers. That margin aboVe the standard wage for skilled workers had been maintained since October 1, 1947, and the interim increase bf 2^d granted recently had been granted to maintain the relative position of the wages of waterside workerg, The Waterfront Industry Authority was not prepaYed: to agree to a variation of the basis upon which waterside '..WPf^ers'*xates/voi remuneratioiT had

been arrived at while the Eeonomk Stabilisation Emergency JSegulation!!: continued to operate. It followed that if while the regulations remained in foree . the standard rates of pay were increased by the Arbitration Court tc a greater .extent than 2-id then, in the .opinion of the Authority, :there wbu-ld be a. prima- f acie case foh a: further. inicrease in- the rates .df p'ay tQ waterside workers. >. • - •• , ; The union sixth arguxnent was that the waterside workers were skilled workers and a margin should be granted for skill. To grant niargins would disturb the present. -relationship between •tlieUvages t)f"Wb,terside workers and th'e wages of those engaged in other industries, the Authority said. The Authority would not be prepared to agree to the granting -of a margin for skill riiiless tlie -strongest. possible . case- ^was put forwapd,showing,'-fqt fi-xam^le,:sr^ne substantial change in th'e ha ture o£ • the work calling for morq skill. That had .not been done- ; . ..