THE COST-OF-LIVING BONUS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 53, 26 November 1920, Page 8

THE COST-OF-LIVING BONUS

CITY COUNCIL'S POSITION

TO BE REPRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT The question as to whether the City Council should bo represented before the Arbitration Court on Monday when tho i position in respect to the now 9s. cost-of-.liviEg bonus is to be reviewed, was discussed in conimitteo for 6ome timo by the City Council last nifrlit. The Mayor's motion was: "That tho council's oflicers be instructed to nttend the Arbitration Court to state the council's cgiso in respect to the proposed bonus." When tho council resumed' in open meeting, Councillor P. Eraser said that the City Council was either in favour of the bonus or against it. Councillor Forsyth: Do you wnnt to give it to every man—the man drawing J:6 a week, say? Councillor Eraser: "I, am speaking of all those who are entitled to it." The Act would cut both ways, and the unions recognised that when the cost of livinj came down the bonus would disappear. The council was seeking to evade the law. A spurious agitation hnd been set up, hence the discussion that was to take place at the Arbitration Court sitting next Monday. The council had no right to stand alongside the Employers' Federation in the matter. By sending a delegate to tho Arbitration Court the council was showing it was against tho men.

Tho Mayor said that the City Council represented neither 6jde, but was a trustee for tho citizens, and had a right to be represented at the Court. The council should be able to place before the Court the case for the city. Bv being represented at the Arbitration Court wns the council taking up a different view from the men, who would be represented before the Court? Councillor' J. Hutchison said the question was: Wns the council to be a model employer, or not?

A voice: Yes. Councillor Hutchison: I hope so. .By going to the Court you arc appearing against the tramwaymen and are opposing their getting the bonus. The Mavor stated that the tramwnynien wanted thrfr Agreement l>y the Court, therefore the council should be represented. • Councillor Hutchison said the City Council's representative would not be able to dispute the Government Statistician's figures, and could only show that the tramways concern was going bankrupt. , Councillor C. H. Chapman stud the Judge of the Arbitration Court had advised the unions to apply early for the bonus. The declaration regarding the bonus meant that it would be granted automatically on application. If the council sent a delegate to oppose the granting of a- bonus to its employees then it would be going back on its own agreements. Councillor M. F. Luckie contended that if the council did not appear before the Court it would be failing in its duty to .the citizens, whose interests it represented. The council could not increase its charges without affecting a large number of neople, and if it did not put this view of the matter before the Court it would be doing a wrong thing. Under the present system there was no differentiation Ibetwen the amount': paid to married and single men. Councillor J. Hums said that if tho resolution was passed it would lie sliowine that the council was "taking sides.' The Mayor moved that the work done in committee bo approved. ' ■ The resolution was carried by < votes to 4, the opponents being Councillors Burn*, Chapman. I'rasor. and Butch;son.

APPLICATION BEFOBE AEBITKA TION COUIiT.

Br Tcleffrnnli—Trees A'We.lnUon.' Palmersfn North, November 25.

Before the Arbitration Court to-aay application for the 95.. November cost-of-living bonus was made under twentyfour awards. Consideration was deferred until the decision is given in the lest cue at Wellington bearinc on ihe subject. '