WAGES DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 188, 6 May 1940, Page 10

WAGES DISPUTE

Auckland Tramway Employees

TRIBUNAL’S DECISION Cost Of Living Bonus Granted (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 5. A cost of living bonus, equal to eight per cent, of the present wage, rates has been granted to employees of the Auckland Transport Board who come under the tramway employees’ industrial agreement. This increase, according to a statement made .by the chairman of the board, Mr. W. 11. Nagle, before the special tribunal set up to consider the wages dispute, will mean an additional expenditure by the board amounting to £30,000. The 5 per cent, increase in wages that the board had offered, he said, would have involved an increased payroll of £20,000. He said tlie cash fares now charged were already up to the maximum allowed under the board’s Order-in-Council, and the increase in wages would mean Hurt consideration would have to be given to the whole fare system. . The text of the finding given by the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. S. Ritchie is as follows "In my opinion, clause 60 of the ' Auckland Transport Board tramway employees’ industrial agreement indicates that, when the agreement was entered into the contracting parties placed value upon the wage rate then fixed with the provision (clause 60) that necessary adjustments to maintain the wage value should he made if, at the end of the year, the then cost of living has varied by 5 per cent.

"The matter of fixing the necessary adjustment was to the parties, and, failing agreement, the question was to be referred to the Court of Arbitration. The matter has been referred to an emergency disputes committee, and as chairman I find that tlie parties are in agreement, first, that the cost of living has increased by the stated 5 per cent, necessary to call for a revision. It is admitted, further, that the cost of living has increased by 8 ppr cent., and the workers claim to be entitled to that increase. Board's Attitude. “The board submitted figures to show that its increased cost would be substantial, and that the added cost might necessitate an alteration in the present fares charged. I do not think tlie increased cost a factor in considering the matter. In 1938, at a time when industrial settlements were generally made for periods of one year or less, the parties made an agreement to the effect that if the cost of living decreased or increased an altered rate of wages should be arranged by agreement. The cost of living increased and now, since the parties are unable to agree upon new wage rates, the matter lias to be determined under the said regulations. “I think the only way in which the wage value can be maintained is by granting an increase in accordance with the accepted cost of living figures of 8 /per cent. It is possible that, a general cost of living allowance may be made in the future to provide for the cost of living increases, and it was agreed that these proceedings should be without prejudice to any proceedings for a general order, as they arise solely out of the special provisions contained, in the Transport Board’s agreement. “Instead of increasing the present award rates I make an order that, from April 1, 1940, a cost of living bonus equal to 8 per cent, of tlie present wage rates be paid to all workers coming within the scope of the agreement, arid, further, that a sick bonus shall be taken into consideration if a general allowance is made. It was agreed that other workers employed under awards or industrial agreements that contain a provision similar to that contained in clause 60 aforesaid shall receive the allowance herein provided.” Mr. Ritchie said that if a cost of living increase were made and it was fixed at say 5 per cent., he did not think it possible that the present finding would be altered as the proceedings arose out of a special provision which was part of the consideration for making a settlement for three years. If, however, the increase was higher than the award now made, he thought the workers would be entitled to the difference.

Mr. Ritchie thought tlie clause in the agreement that had been considered was ill-advised. It was a mistake in his view to make settlements that were not awards.