ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 266, 4 August 1920, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT

A QUESTION OF EFFICIENCY

FOOD VALUES AND WAGES

The Mas.terton and Wairarapa carpenters and joiners' dispute was before the Arbitration Court yesterday morning. Ills Honour, Mr. Justice Stringer, presided, and with him as assessors were Messrs. YV\ Scott and J. A. M'Cullough. The pointß at iosuc were questions of wages and the cost-of-living boniiß.

On behalf of tho workers Mr. W. Maddison argued that if more production was wanted, the worker must have, more purchasing power to procure the necessary energy to do the work. For a- married man with a family, 2s. an hour and 3d. honuß was inadequate. The married man's I position was the crux of the problem, and the Court has never yet laid down what was n living wago on a scientific basis. Observations showed that with every fresh mouth in the family the rest BUffcr.ed, and therefore there was a tendency to keep families down. As the purchasing power of wageß declined, the efficiency of the worker went down al6o, Mr. Maddison quoted figures 6how- x ing that J557 carpenters and joiners ;had been "turned down" for military service, and he attributed, this to malnutrition amongst parents and children. llcttcr wages meant better work, and more food a bigger output. It had been calculated that the worker spent 34 per cent, of tho wages on food, and this on the basiß of tho 2b. an hour award would be only 335. a week, or much under requirements The consequence was that low-grade food was consumed, and low efficiency resulted. Mr. Maddison concluded by stating that lie would not aßk the Court/ to fix. a wage, at present, but to consider carefully the arguments ho had used. He felt sure that tho Court would find that 2s. 3d. an hour was not sufficient for a married man with a family.

In reply, Mr. W. Gronfell, who represented the employers, said it was not tho duty of the Court to do more than supply the normal requirements for a porson doing a normal day's ■ work. It was the duty of the employer to supply the rest. When the waterside workers were given more fuel, there was a 25 per centT less output. What was wanted was a better spirit on the part of the worker, not more fuel. New Zealand workers were not underpaid. The .proportion of rejects was not duo to lack of food, but pcrhaius to unsuitable food and to other conditions. Fatigue resulting Irom long hours of work might apply to England, but it did not apply in this country. Eight hours a day was a perfectly reasonable period for a man to work, and a man was quite able to work at high 6pecd for that time. Generally speaking, the working man was "not badly eff in this country. His Honour Baid that he supposed the workor wanted the maximum cf pay for tho minimum of work, and the employer the maximum of work for the minimum of pay. Until a different spirit nrevailed things would go on much as they were. Fresh aspects of the case had been presented in' an interesting discussion, and to thcEe tho Court would give consideration

* FEMALES IN FURNITURE TRADE. The Court was engaged In tho afternoon hearing a dispute in regard to the 'working conditions of female workers in the upholstering trade in Wellington. The Wellington Federated Furniture Trades Union (upholsterers' section)' was represented by Mr. D. Kennedy, and Mr. IV. Grenfell anpearcd for the employers. Ihe union claimed that £4 19s. should bo paid weekly to heads of workrooms and" cutters of loose covers, and that other female workers should receive £i 10s. It was also asked that tho award should contain an apprenticeship.clause, and that tho wageß of apprentices should be as rollow:-First year, £1; second vcar, £1 7s. 6d.; third year. £1 155.; fourth year, £2 ss. The employers contended that instead of an apprenticeship clause, all i'emuloß should commence as learners, and tho following wages were offered:--First year, 10s.: Becond year, 155.; third year, £1; fourth year. £1 7s. id.; thereafter, £1 15s.

Mr, Kennedy stated that there was n» award governing the conditions r-f female workers at present, but some hcadß of' departments received £3 10b. per week, and others £3 12s. He claimed that the wages of women workers Bhould be increased in 'proportion to the increase in tho cost of living since 1914. Mr. Grenfell Baid that in Duncdin the award rate for all claßßeß of female workers in the upholstering trade was 30s. per week, and, In Auckland, tho general rate was 355. The work was in no way strenuous, and' was 'essentially ■ women's work. If tho females were to receive the samo wages as the men upholsterers, the cmplovcrß would havo to dismiss the female workers. It was thought by the employers that if the offer of £1 15a. was incorporated into the award as the. basic wage for female workers, tho Court would grant increases in the way of bonuses.

After hearing evidence tho Court reserved its decision.