GENERAL ORDER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24405, 17 September 1940, Page 9

GENERAL ORDER

EXCLUSION OF WORKERS EMPLOYERS’ APPLICATIONS REFUSE) BY THE COURT _ Judgment has been delivered by the Court of Arbitration in three applications by groups of employers for exemption from the General Order increasing wages by 5 per cent. In each case the court holds that adequate reasons for the exclusion of the workers from the order have not been shown •nd the applications are refused Bakers and Pastrycooks In the case of the New Zealand bakers and pastrycooks and their labourers’ award the grounds specified in the employers’ application were “ that by reason of the economic and financial conditions affecting the industry, the imposition of the 5 per cent bonus constitutes an unfair burden and a hardship on the employers.” In its judgment the court says that the advocate for the employers, elaborating upon the grounds for the application indicated that the principal economic and financial condition affecting the industry was the fact that the retail prices of certain products of the industry were controlled and that such prices could not be increased to compensate for any increases in costs of production without the authority of the . appropriate tribunal It was claimed and proved that substantial increases in costs have accrued in the industry since the last award was made. It was also stated that an aipplication to increase certain retail prices had been made to the Price Investigation. Tribunal and was now under consideration. As pointed out in the lime workers' judgment, the court cannot accept the existence of price control in an industry as an adequate reason for the exclusion of the workers in that industry from the operations of the General Order. The application is refused. Rural Labourers The grounds of the application made in the case of the New Zealand local bodies (rural) labourers’ award were as follows: (1) That the said award granted substantial increases in wages and improvements in conditions to the workers covered by it notwithstanding that there had been no alteration in the conditions of work or the circumstances of the local bodies since the making of the previous award; (2) that the local bodies bound by the award are in rural areas and any increases in overhead can only be passed on at the expense of the primary producer; (3) that since the making of the said award there has been nothing to justify any further increases in wages. With regard to the first and third grounds, the judgment says, that although the court gave certain increases in wages in the recent new award it did so to bring the rates into line with those paid to workers doing very similar work for other local authorities, but in view of the fact that the hearing of the application for a General Order was pending, no cognisance was taken of the increased cost of living as this factor was one of the principal matters which the court was directed to take into account before making a General Order. In particular reference to the first ground it should also be mentioned that the improvements- in conditions granted in the recent award were mainly the result of agreement by the parties in Conciliation Council, such agreement having been reached irrespective of the claim that there had been no alteration of the conditions of work or the circumstances of the local bodies since the making of the previous award. With regard to the second ground the court gave the fullest consideration to the position of the primary producer before making the General Order. Further, the court cannot accept the inference that rural local authoritie are less liable to pay the same rates of wages as are paid by urban local authorities for similar services, nor can it subscribe to the view that a worker for a borough council should receive less for the same class of work than an employee of the adjacent county council. The application of the workers for partial exclusion from the General Order is couched in the following terms: —“That the workers covered by such award'he partially excluded from the operation of the General Order of the court dated August 9. 1940, to enable the court to provide a more adequate allowance to the workers concerned to meet the necessities of life; to provide for them a reasonable standard of living in accordance with the economic conditions of the country: by directing that the effect of the order on the above-mentioned award shall be to increase all rates of remuneration provided therein (including overtime. wages and other special payments) bv an amount equal to 15 per centum thereof.”

The grounds for our application are: (1) That 5 per cent, on the already low wages paid these workers will not enable them to live in a reasonable standard of comfort; (2) that the employers are in a sheltered position and are not subject to any competition from home or abroad; (3) that they are consequently in a position to pay their employees a reasonable wage to maintain them and their families in an adequate standard of comfort; (4) that the employers bound by this award should not in consequence of their position seek to pay 'their employees at a lower level than employers employing similar workers who are not engaged in com- | petitive industry.” j The points mentioned in the first three grounds were considered by the court before making the General Order, and the court cannot see that any adequate reason has been submitted to justify a variation in treatment of the employees of rural local authorities as compared with the position of the workers generally who are covered by awards or industrial agreements. The fourth ground is not relevant to an application for an increase in rates of remuneration from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The court is of the opinion that in neither case do the stated grounds justify an order for exclusion. The applications are accordingly refused Lime Workers’ Award i In respect to the New Zealand lime workers’ award the grounds of the application were as follows: (1) That the product of the industry is sold at a fixed price which cannot be increased without the permission of the Price Investigation Tribunal: (2) that an increase in price is undesirable because it cannot be passed on except to the primary producer: (3) that the increases embodied in the said award are so high that they already constitute an unfair burden on the industry; (4) that the evidence giyen at the hearing was sufficient to justify even the increases granted bv the court and does not justify any further addition to overhead: f 5) that under the said award employers have had to restrict their methods of working and conseciuently reduce their production at a time when an increase in the production of. lime is vitally necessary. In regard to the first ground, says the judgment, the court is faced with the fact that many products of industry are now under internal control in regard to price, consequently it is felt that to recognise the existence of such control as an adequate reason for making an order for exclusion of any particular class of workers from the provisions of-the General Order would be tantamount to the acceptance of an unjustifiable delimitation of the courts •jurisdiction. The second ground was given the fullest consideration by the court before the General Order was made. Further, it should be pointed out that the sale of the product of the industry is not by any means limited to purchases by primary producers The third and fourth grounds relate to decisions of the court prior to the hearing of the application for the General Order and are more relevant to an application for a new award than to an application for exclusion under

clause 9 of the Rates of Wages Emergency Regulations. The court does not agree that the burden of recent increases is unfair as compared with the position in other industries. With regard to the fifth ground no evidence was tendered to support the statements made therein and the court is not convinced that the references give a reliable picture of the State of the industry as a .whole. . After taking all the grounds into consideration the court is of the opinion that an order for exclusion is not justified. The application is accordingly refused.