THE The Pukekohe and Waiuku Times PUBLISHED ON TUESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOONS. FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1917 WAR BONUS AWARD.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 261, 23 March 1917, Page 2

THE The Pukekohe and Waiuku Times PUBLISHED ON TUESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOONS.

FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1917 WAR BONUS AWARD.

"We nothing extenuate, nor tet down auoht in malice."

Judged by a letter read at a meeting of the Pukekohe Borough Council on Wednesday the Council are likely to he oncerned in what will rank as the first test case hoard by a Magistrate to determine the actual definition o! an ambiguous wording of a war bonus award.

The circumstances are that in May last a deputation of married men in the Council's employ waited on the Council and asked that in viewjof the increased cost of living, brought about by the war, the wages paid to married men should be raised by 1/per day. The claims of married men for special consideration were recognised by the Council and the increase as applied for was granted with the result that their weekly wage became £3. Subsequently an Award, known as the Northern District Local Bodies' Labourers Award came into force specifying certain rates of wages for different classes of workers, included in which was that casual employees should be paid at tho rate of 1/2 per hour together with a war bonus of ten per cent " upon the said rates," a total wage of ±3 Is 7d for the week, inclusive of war bonus. A clause in the Award, however, further read " All workers now receiving a higher rate of pay than herein provided shall not have their wages reduced while in their present employment" and this is the point on which the dispute has arisen. With a view of strictly complying with the rates of pay as prescribed in the Award and not paying a war bonus based upon the amount of wage which included the extra 1/- per day granted the married lab rnrers, who had been receiving the latter figure, were one day last October summarily dismissed but were told they could resume work the following morning at Award rates. The sequel is that the men protested to the Labour Department and at last Wednesday's Council meeting a letter was road from the Oflicor-iu-Charge of the Labour Office in Auckland claiming that the Council had committed a breach of the Award by refusing to pay the men concerned a war bonus of ten per cent based on the wages they were previously receiving. The Officer also intimated that unless the Award

was complied with and arrears of wages due under the Award were paid a prosecution would be instituted. The Council's decision to formally " receive " the letter means that the Council are willing to let the Magistrate decide the question at issue. The legal point that will be argued before the Magistrate is as to whether or not within the meining of the Award the rate of pay to the men concerned has been reduced. As a matter of fact, as already explained, they are now receiving £3 Is 7d per week as against £3 prior to the award. The contention of the Labour Department's Officer is, however, that the ten per cent war bonus should be based on the £3 per week previously paid and that they are accordingly entitled to a weekly wage of £3 6s. We are quite in accord with the desirability of a Court ruling being obtained bo as to secure a decision in regard to the actual terms of the Award but at the same time we consider that in these days of the high cost of living married men deserve and should be paid a higher rate of wage than a single man who has no family to rear. We maintain that it was this actual principle that was affirmed by the Council last May and indeed Cr Roadley, who must be given the credit for being the sponsor of the movement, spoke on such lines in proposing the resolution which was adopted. Then again, the very fact that such officials of the Council as the Town Clerk, the Foreman of Works, and the Waterworks Engineer, very properly as married men came under the scope of the resolution and have each since been in receipt of an increased salary of 1/- per day lends colour to our contention that it was not so much the actual amouut of pay that received attention but rather the fact that married men through war exigencies had been placed at a disadvantage as 'compared with bachelors. Whether the pending Court case ie lost or won we hope that the Council will recognise that the interests of the State demand that all possible encouragement and support should be given to married men, especially of the working class, whose lot in life has been rendered excessively formidable by foodstuffs, clothing, and in fact every household requirement, being so costly in price.