ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 12 May 1931, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

SPECIAL SITTING. THE WAGE QUESTION. 1 (By Telegraph—Per Brass Association) WELLINGTON. AU'y 12. 'The question of tim issue of a gtneral omer with 10.-qmet to wages, whs beiure the Arbitration Court this morn l ng. Air T. (). Bishop (Seen tar v of the Employers FVtlt ration > appeal ed on behalf of the employers and said he !ia,.T with niui Ai r \\. J. Alouutjoy u»t Wellington Employers Association) and A. S. Cooks-on (of -Otago Employers Association), i'>M;ruete ( | by Employers organisations in their districts. .1. Roberts (Secretary of the Alliance of Labour) appeared on behalf of the Waterside Workers Federation, and tile recent conference of trade

unions. He w« l s supported by J. Mc-

Combs M.R. of Lyttelton, AY. T. A'oung of Wellington and P. Warner of Lower Hutt, instructed by various unions, .Messrs .McCombs and Young nF O represent New Zealand Trades tun] Labour Council.

Ropre,x;,nfutive:j wore also present on behalf of numerous Unions in different districts. Miss Cossev of Auckland appeared on behalf of women employees. Air Bishop asked Justice Frazer if he would indicate what procedure would be followed,

Juslio,? Frazer said the Court would, after hearing ilm representations decide wluu general order, if any, should be issued, and it would then be competent for Unions desiring exemption to file applications in their district?). Tiirse applications would be hcpi'd at a lat-pr date,

If any general order were made, (lie Court would certainly keep in mind the suecial circumstances <>i which it had knowledge in regard to certain industries, for instance, flaxmill workers in Alanawatn district. It would be competent, for the Court to grant exemption on its own motion, where it thought fit. AVELLINGTON, May 12.

The Arbitration Court considering the preliminary points having been disposed of, Air Bishop addressed the Court on behalf of the employers, in respect to a general order. Mr Bishop, Secretary of the Employees Federation, addressing the Arbitration Court, outlined the movements of wage rates ranging from Is 2d per hour for unskilled labourer, and Is -ltd to Is 0(1 for skilled labour, •early in 1914. to Is 10d lor unskilled Is 1 111 to 2< Id for semi-skilled, and 2s 3d for skilled labour in 1925. Since then rates have been stabilised at that level. He contended there was ample precedent for legislation contained in the recent Finance Act, in that wages liaq previously been adjusted both upwards and downwards during the currency of awards. After tickling lengthily with fhe extent of the reduction of the national income and the difficulties being encountered by industries. Mr Bishop said something had to lie done in the direction of reducing costs. Private employers had been foro?d to reduce tlie salaries of executive officers and staffs, and the Government had followed tin* example as regards the public service. There remained L h f necessity to adjust labour costs of production and distribution, by a reduction of wage rates to enable it it to he possible tn employ full staffs, maintain the output, and still reduce costs.

Mr Bishop concluding, said a reduction of twenty per cent, in 1,1 a n> rates of wages was essential If it were made, the result would ba il reduction in all internal costs, an improvement of output and a renewal of confidence throughout the whole industrial field It was a fallacy to state a reduction of money wages would mean reduced purchasing power, in so far as wage reduction, led to a reduction of costs and the, purchasing power would he increased. Mr Justice Frazer said that when the question of the general order was previously before the Court, a preliminary announcement bad been made b\ the Court in which it had been shown what, alteration there bad been In the cost of living. It had been left to parties to argue whether there should be an increase or a redueiou of wages. The necessity for stating the cost of living figures had now gone because they were regularly published. In the present case it could he taken that employers by asking for the date to be fixed for hearing the parties had initiated proceedings and it would be for their representatives to give grounds for seeking any wage reductions. cell evidence if desired and indicate the extent to which they considered the Court should make a reduefion. Representatives of workers would then have an opportunity to answer the -case and raise any countercase. it would even he open tor them to apply for an increase. Mr Roberts questioned whether it was right for the Court to make a general order, which would affect industries in which employers had no desire to apply for reduction. Mr dlnver pointed out it was not necessary for emp'oyers to put the general order into effect unless they wished to do so. Mr Roberts:—“But it would be a terrible temptation.” Mr Frazer replying to further points said the exemption where granted would be retrospective while* it would lie necessary for applications to be hied in each district, it did not

follow it would be necessary for cases to be beard in each district, with respect to any one trade. He added it would be possible for the Courts attention to be drawn before a general order (if any) was made to- the outstanding circumstances in any industry, but it would not be possible at that stage to hear any substantial case in support of application for exemption. The Court could, in outstanding cases, act on its own motion. .Mr L‘\ Turley, representative of the West Coast Sawmill Workers, said he did not consider Mr Bishop had any authority to seek a reduction in wages in that industry as employers were not seeking snob a reduction. Mr Frazer said if sawmill employers did not wish there be any reduction, there were two courses open to them, either to ignore the. general order or to join employees in making a joint application for exemption.

Mr Young submitted that the Employers Federation had no authority to initiate proceedings as it was not registered under the Arbitration Act. dir Frazer pointed out that the reeloration had merely asked the Court what date it proposed to fix for the hearing. It was actually the duty of the Court to start the ball rolling.