Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT

HEARING RESUMED.

(By Telegraph-—Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON. A fay IS

Immediately the Arbitration Court met thi s morning to resume the hearing of the argument and evidence on the question whether a general order .siiomd be issued in respect to workers remuneration, Mr Huberts said there was one point he would like to be settled before opening the case for the employees. He would like the Court to express an opinion on a suggestion made by Air Bishop, that the Court should consider rationing work, he contending that the Court had no power under the Ait to consider this aspect. It wa s admitted that certain arrangements had been made between union workers and employers. but there would be a big difference between that and making it. possible for such an arrangement to be enforced Justice Frazer said Air Bishop Had put forward no argument in favour of rationing work. He had merely indicated that he would ask the Court to consider the question. His Honour said at first sight it appeared it would not be - competent for the Court to adopt Alt Bishop's suggestion. Alt Bishop said lie hud not had time to prepare argument on the point. He doubted m the moment whether the wording of the Act was wide enough to enable the Court to adopt his suggestion. Rationing of work was one of the practical adjustments that were being made at the present time, and it would be satisfactory if it could be made legal.

His Honor—But I think it deal s only with rates of remuneration. .1 understand by arrangement Uetween employers and unions, s oine rationing is going on. Mr Bishop—Yes. Justice Frazer—The alternative presenting itself is that Parliament should be asked to legalise for rationing work.

Mr J. McCombs submitted that weekly wages was based on a certain standard of living and if they were interfered with there should, in fairness, be other adjustments. Rationing work, which would permit casual employment at weekly rates, would be most unfair.

Justice Frazer repeated that Mr Bishop had merely mentioned the question. It had been clearly indicated in the original legislation that wages and hours were separate entities, and the present legislation made no reference to hours of wor.c. The Court apparently had been intended to confine itself to rates of remuneration.

After consultation with his colleagues, he was in a position to state the*-Count. warn satisfied if had no power to consider the question of rat* inning work, If it- were desired by both pjirtieti tp empe to homo smcli arrangement they should have made a joint application to the Court to vary the award. This could only be done by consent of the parties and in respect to those particular awards. Air J. Roberts then addressed the Court.

ADDRESS BY MR J. ROBERTS. WELIITXGTON, May 18. Appearing on behalf of unions represented at the 1928 national industrial conference. Mr J. Roberts said at that conference the employers, particularly farmers representatives, demanded eompulsoy arbitration .should b<> abolished, and it now seemed that Government had adroitly conceded to their demands, for if wage rates provided in awards and industrial agreements were interforred with during the currency of s ueh awards and agree, ments, the workers would be compelled in ofder to safeguard their standard of life, to find some other means of adjusting disputes. The Arbitration Court could not be expected to give justice to wage workers if it pronounced judgment on a general order to reduce wages, after a superficial investigation. One of the reason s advanced by those desiring to reduce wages, was that production costs must be reduced, and this had led to a general belief that wages j cost s bi production were the principal ; cause of the present depression. tie contended there was not an economist in the world who would not readily j admit that wages and costs production to-day were lower than at any time in history, although it must be admitted the introduction of machinery had been the cause of very high overhead costs in some industries. Workers representatives considered the real remedy of the present difficulties lay not in lowering wages, but in increasing them hy all means. A machine should he allowed to produce efficiently and to he introduced even if it displaced labour. The only common sense remedy for labour displacement bv n machine was to reduce the weekly working hours. A market must he found for the goods produced „v the machine and he submitted that the only way to find that market was to increase the wage rates, relatively with the ever increasing production oi machine mvdo commodities. Continuing. Mr Roberts d ec|Ual sacrifice is necessary to rehabilitate prosperity in New Zealand, then those who draw interest front money invested war loans and other loans raised by the Government and also from loans raised bv public bodies, should he called upon to make the same sacrifice as primary producers and workers have aleady made. Mr Roberts contended that, New Zealand industries were paying too high a toll to bondholders. It would take more than i wo hales of wool to pay off

the mortgage to-day, that one balo of wool would have paid fti 1919 or* 1925. The same applied to butter, cheese, meat or any other primary products, but instead of farmers <te/landing some relief by payment on tbo basis of price levels, they joined issues with the bondholders and were demanding a reduction of wages. The demand for wage reduction was simply one that the workers should pay a greater part of the interest on the national debt. He submitted the Court must ■ consider if a reduction of wages would assist to overcome the economic depression, what standard of life the average worker was entitled to and tile opportunity offered to the average worker to earn wage that would give that standard of life, and whether workers- were entitled to a substantial increase, in view of t-lie fact that employment was more casual through the rationing of work and the introduction of machines. Ho had no hesitation in saying that if the number of hours worked on ail average for the past year by worwej» receiving an hourly wage were taken as a basis on which the present wage fixed arid workers were to retain their accustomed standard of living then afifteen to twenty per cent, wage increase would be necessary. Ho considered the application for a substantial wage increase was justified.

Mr Roberts in conclusion appealed to the Court to protect the worker’s standard of living to safeguard their interests against the dictates of bondholders overseas. Unless the Court took such a course, ruin would follow. Mr McCombs will address the Court this afternoon.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19310518.2.49

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 18 May 1931, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,126

ARBITRATION COURT Hokitika Guardian, 18 May 1931, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT Hokitika Guardian, 18 May 1931, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert