THE FLAXMILLING DISPUTE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3875, 24 November 1928, Page 3

THE FLAXMILLING DISPUTE.

MR. .JUSTICE ERASER’S DECISION. CUT IN WAGES NOT, JUSTIFIED. His Honour, Mr. Justice Frazer, has delivered an important decision in the Arbitration. Court, following the recent series of disputes between the flaxmillers and mill employees. Several conferences having proved abortive, both parties decided to refer the dispute to the Arbitration iCOurt, which heard the matter on November 16. Under the Manawatu flaxmillers’ award, the employers applied for a reduction of 10 per cent, in wages in respect to the workers. The owners made this application on the grounds that the present state of the industry warranted such a reduction. Further an application was made for the fixing of a rate of wages for workers-on automatic scutching machines. The Court, after hearing both applications reserved its decision. The verdict was made available on Thursday, however, his honour stating as follows on the first question of wages. — SLIDING SCALE SUGGESTED. “This is an application for a general reduction of 10i per cent, in all time and piecework rates fixed by the award. The employers argue that the present price of fibre, though higher than it was some months ago, is not yet sufficiently high to enable them to carry on at a reasonable profit. The rates of wages fixed by the award are minimum rates and, in the case of the lowest, are only £d per hour above the * Court’s basic rate. It is not the practice of the Court to fix wages in accordance with the profits of an industry, but to fix minimum rates, leaving it to the employers to pay higher rates than the minima to workers who are above the minimum standard of efficiency. If unusually high rates had been agreed upon by the parties on account of this industry 'being in a prosperous condition at the time the award was made, the Court might have felt justified in ordering a reduction when the trade met with a period of depression. The award rates, however are not unusually high, but represent the rates that would ordinarily be awarded to workers of a similar grade, performing somewhat similar work in other industries. In such a case,

the only way of adjusting wages during the currency of the award is the introduction of a sliding scale, giving the employers the be-

nefit of lower wages during a period of low prices, and giving the workers the benefit of the higher wages during a corresponding period of high prices. The employers refused to accept a suggestion by the Court that an amendment of the award should be made along these lines, although the union was prepared to adopt it. REDUCTION REFUSED. “The court, in these circumstances does not think it proper to grant the employers’ application for a reduction of wages. It thinks that a sliding scale, giving an immediate reduction with a corresponding increase when the renewed prosperity of the industry permitted it, would fairly meet the position, but as the employers are not willing to accept such a scale, the Court does not propose to order its adoption. The Court at present is of the opinion that the principle of a sliding scale, based on the market prices of the produce of an industry, should be adopted only with the consent of the parties concerned. In order to afford the parties a basis of discussion, we set

out below a suggested amendment of the award which, with any variations that the parties may desire, can be agreed upon by them. If they agree, the Court will make an order amending the award accordingly. PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

“The suggested amendment is as follows: —Add after clause 4 (m) the following sub-clause: (n) On and after November 26th, 1928, all time wages and piece rates specified in this clause shall be adjusted as follows: (1) “The base shall be the average price ex-store Wellington, or high/fair, and low grade hemp. (2) “The tupe wages and piece rates specified ift this clause are to be considered as fixed on the base equalling £27 5/- per ton. (3) “The said time wages and piece rates shall be reduced by 5 per cent, when the base falls to £26, and by 10 per cent, when the base falls to £24 15/-; and shall be increased by five per cent, when the base rises to £2B 10/-, and by 10 per cent, when the base rises to £29 IS/- . (4) “The base shall be determined at three monthly intervals, and for the three months commencing November 26, 1928, it shall be the average price for the months of August, September, and October, 1928. For the three monthly period commencing on February 26, 1929, the base shall be the average price for, the months of November and

December, 1928, and January, 1929, and it shall be determined in similar manner for ensuing periods. Provided, however, that the rates payable for the three monthly period commencing August 26 in any year shall be computed on the same base as for the preceding three monthly period commencing on May 26,

(5) “The determination of the base from time to time shall be delegated to a committee consisting of three representatives of the employers and three of the anion. If

the committee is unable to agree, it shall refer the matter to the permanent head of the Department of Industries and Commerce, whose decision shall be binding. It shall be the duty of the committee to advise employers and the union as soon as conveniently may be of the base rate for each three monthly period. (6) “The system of adjusting time wages and piece rates hereinbefore set out shall continue until any period or periods of reduced rates has or have been compensated for by an equivalent period ,or periods of increased rates. Three months at a rate reduced by 10 per cent, shall be deemed equivalent to six months at a rate increased by 5 per cent, and similarly for corresponding periods. Wtyien compensating periods have expired, the rates of time and piece wages set out in the preceding sub-clauses of this clause shall operate unless by order of the Court, on the application of any party to this award, the provisions of this sub-clause are continued in force.” SCUTCHING MACHINES.

The following further alteration was ordered by the Court regarding automatic scutchers: — “That the said award shall be amended by adding to sub-clause f, of clause 4 thereof, the following words and figures:— Automatic scutchers (hook grip machine): Piece rates, two press 15/6 per ton, one press 16/6 per ton. Time rates i Two shillings per hour, only one youth, however, to be employed to each machine as feeder only. “The order shall operate „and take effect from November 22, 1928.”

His Honour stated that the above was an application to fix time rates for the hook-grip automatic scutcher. The order made represented the decision of a majority of the Court, and fixed alternative rates. It appeared that two of these machines were in use when the present award was made, so that from one point of view it might be said that they were not strictly “new machinery” within the meaning of clause 22. The majority of the Court, however, was of the opinion that, as their installation was experimental, and that they had not been fully tried out at that time, they might be fully regarded as new machinery, for the operation of which the Court might fix special rates. Now that sufficient time had elapsed to enable an opinion to be formed as to the capacity of the machines and of the degree of skill required for their operation, it was competent for the Court to fix special rates for the worker employed on them. The Court had recently had an opportunity of seeing one of the machines in operation. It should be added that these machines had not been mentioned to the Court, nor did any reference to them appear in the record of proceedings of the Conciliation Court, when the dispute was heard in 1927.

MR MONTEITH DISAGREES. Mr. Monteith, a member of the Court, dissented from the decision stating that the facts were that, at the time of making the award, two machines were in operation, and one under construction, and that since the award had come into operation a further two had been placed in commission and another was in course of construction. Clause 22 dealt only with new machinery being introduced and in this case, the machine had certainly been introdued before the award was made and the parties had certainly known about its operations. The decision of a majority of the Court had introduced into the award the principle of hourly wage and boy labour for scutching. This was a new departure and, in Mr. Monteith’s opinion, clause 22 did not give power to introduce any -such new principles, it only allowing an adjustment of rates. He strongly dissented from the decision, being of the opinion that the clause could not on the facts be stretched to suggest that these machines were not in operation, when in fact they cei’tainly had been, and the clause only allowed of adjustment of existing rates, and did not allow of introducing new principles of employment in regard to scutching.