EXEMPTION NOT GRANTED

Southland Times, Issue 24233, 17 September 1940, Page 6

EXEMPTION NOT GRANTED

WAGES INCREASE TO STAND

COURT’S DECISION IN THREE INDUSTRIES

Applications by employers in three industries for exemption from the general order of August 9 increasing wages by 5 per cent, have been refused by the Court of Arbitration. The workers concerned are those bound by the New Zealand Bakers’ and Pastrycooks’ and their Labourers’ Award, the New Zealand Local Bodies (Rural) Labourers’ Award and the New Zealand Lime Workers’ Award.

In the bakers’ and pastrycooks’ case the grounds specified in the '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. “The advocate for the employers in 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,” states the judgment of Mr Justice Tyndall. “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 application to increase certain retail prices had been made to the Price Investigation Tribunal and was now under consideration. 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 operation of the general order. The application is refused.”

LOCAL BODY WORKERS Both employers and workers under the Local Bodies (Rural) Labourers’ Award sought exemption. The grounds for the employers’ application were: (1) That the 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 award there has been nothing to justify any further increases in wages.

“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 cognizance 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,” states the judgment of the Court. “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 fact 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.” On the second ground the Court gave the fullest consideration to the position of the primary producer before making the general order. Further, the Court could not accept the inference that rural local authorities were less able to pay the same rates of wages as were paid by urban local authorities for similar services, nor could 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.

WORKERS’ APPLICATION The application of the workers for partial exclusion from the general order was couched in the following terms:— “That the workers covered by such award be partially excluded from the operation of the general order 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 award shall be to increase all rates of remuneration provided therein (including overtime, wages, and other special payments) by an amount equal to 15 per cent, thereof. “The grounds for our application are:—(l) That 5 per cent, on the already low wages paid these workers vzill 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 labour who are not engaged in competitive industry. “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,” states the judgment. “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 .hat in neither case do the stated grounds justify an order for exclusion. The applications are accordingly refused.”

ORDER NOT JUSTIFIED “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 recognize 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 Court’s jurisdiction,” stated the judgment on the lime companies’ application. “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.” PROPOSAL TO INCREASE TRAM FARES (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 16.

By ten votes to six, the Wellington. City Council, at an adjourned meeting this afternoon, adopted a report from the Tramway Committee advocating