THE NINE-SHILLING BONUS

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 62, 7 December 1920, Page 8

THE NINE-SHILLING BONUS

BASIS OP COMPUTATION QUESTIONED APPLICATION ON SPECIAL GROUNDS STILL TO BE HEARD The question whether or not the whole basis on whioh the nine-shilling cost-of-living bonus, and indeed all the preceding bonuses, had been paid was wrong, in that tho first six-monthly period used for comparison had been tho epidemic period of 1918, was raised in the Arbitration Court yesterday morning, before His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer, when Mr. M. J. lieardon, for the unions, asked the Court to investigate that aspect of tho case before giving its judgment. Mr. W. Pryor, representing the New Zeaalml Employers' Federation, said that in his opinion it. would be far more satisfactory for tho Court to pronounce its judgment beforo hoaring, any flirttior applications for tho nine-shilling bonus by individual unions. , • ' "I am prepared to support that proposal," said Mr. Beardon, "but, sinco the ease was finished, we have discovered that the basis of computation selected is iiiisound, and wo would like to show that the period selected as the computation basis was that of the influenza epidemic. . . .'ln measuring altitude, the sea level is takon as a base: and so » sound statistician, in commuting increases in the cost of living, would try to obtain a basis that was normal. As a matter of fact, we think that the period decided on by the Court was an abnormal one. . . . It we applied tho same system to tho niensure of hoiglit, wc would assume that the sen level was its position at the hmo ot a tidal wave." . , At this 'Mr. Pryor demurred, renting that the'first bonus period was taken from March to September, 1919. VLho cpidomtc occurred in November. 1910. n«» aC, JIr.' Eeardon: But the epidemic period was the basis of the computation. Mr. Justice Stringer said that the basic wugo was fixed in March', 1919, and also certain bonuses. "The matter, was cleared up to that time," he added. Rightly or ivronglv, we did tho fixing, and tho figures nf tho Statistician are talron out from then onwards." . , r T Another mucin reTJrcpentativc. JJr. M'Combs, contended that all tho figures used hud been tftken from the basis of ihe six months ending on March 31, IJIJ. "In stating Ills own case, said Mr. M'Comte, "the employers' representative (Mioted a figure as 15l!9, which was tho average for tho six months prior to March, 1919. As a matter of fact, 111 that period the figure rose from 1.i09 to 1603, and thon dropped." His Honour snid thf.t tho Court had asked the Government Statistician what It would bo necessary to add to the worked wage in compensation for the cost-of-living increase, provided that tno wages and'tho bonus at a given tune wore so rimcb. 110 asked the unions representatives to forward n stntoinent on the matter, and announced his intention ot advising the Statistician. If a discussion wore ■ necessary he would ad'vise all parties. While it was desirable to announce tho judgment of the Court on tho main question, special claims tor "bonu9 would bo investigated.