TRAMWAY DISPUTE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 133, 6 May 1940, Page 2

TRAMWAY DISPUTE

COST OF LIVING BONUS. AWARD BY TRIBUNAL. Per Press Association. AUCKLAND, May 5. A cost of living bonus, equal to 8' per cent, of the present wage rates has t>ee.n 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. H. Nagle; before the special tribunal set up to consider the wages dispute, w.ll 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-Counci 1, and the increase in wages would mean that consideration would have to be given to the whole lare system. The text of the finding given by the chairman of the tribunal (Mr 8. Ritchie) was 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 be 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 left 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. 1 find that the parties are in agreement, first, that the cost of living has increased by the stated 5 per cent, necessary to call lor a revision. It is admitted, further, that the cost of living has increased by 8 per cent., and the workers claim to be entitled to that increase; , . ATTITUDE OF BOARD. “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 the 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 livjng increased and now, since the parties are unable to agree upon new wage rates, the matter ha*, 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 provis'ons contained in the Transport Board’s agreement. “Instead of increasing the present award rates I make an order ihat, from April 1.1910, a cost of living bonus equal to 8 per cent, of the present wage rates bo paid to all workers coming within the scope of the agreement, and. further, that a sick bonus shall ba taken into consideration if a general allowance is made. It was agreed that others workers employed under awards or industrial agreements that contain a provision similar to thatcontained in clause 60 aforesaid shall receive the allowance herein provided.” Mr Ritchie said that if a. cost of living increase -were made and it were fixed at, say. 5 per cent, he did not think it nossible that the present finding -would be altered, as the proceedings arose out of a special provis'on which was part of the consideration for making a settlement for three yea.rs. If, however, the increase were higher than the award now made, lie thought Me workers would he entitled to the difference. Mr Ritcliio thought the clause in the agreement that had been considered was ill-advised. It was a mistake in liis view to make settlements that were not awards.