NO WAGE INCREASE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 783, 2 October 1929, Page 10

NO WAGE INCREASE

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ CLAIM

MR. JUSTICE BLAIR’S FINDING

Judgment lias been delivered by Mr. Justice Blair in the Dominion waterside workers' dispute. recently before the Arbitration Court. There is no change in the genera! cargo rates, although the court adjusted minor inconsistencies. Thus the union's claim for an increase from 2s 4d to 2s 6d an hour has failed. The court's memorandum explains that the union claimed that the gene!ml cargo rate should be increased from 2s 4d to 2s Gd an hour, the basis )of this claim being- that the easualj ness of employment in the industry | was greater than previously, i In the 1922 award the court arrived j at its basic wage rate by adding 2 5 [ per cent, to the then general labourers’ | (casual) rate, in order to compensate I for the extra casual nature of the | watersider’s work. ; The basic rate then in operation 1 (2s 2d an hour) gave an average weekly wage of £3 17s 2d. brought up to £.4 9s Sd by the addition of overtime and special cargo rates. Since the making of the 1924 award, which fixed 2s 2id an hour, an agreement was made for an increase of 15d an hour in the general cargo rate. There is no evidence to support the suggestion that any increase in the basic rate is justified on the ground of increased casualness, continues the report. The basic rate for unskilled workers was fixed by the court in its 1925 pronouncement at Is lOd an hour. The court has adopted the principle of granting to the waterside worker, on account of special casualness of cm- j ployment, an additional 25 per cent. ! above the ordinary casual labourer’s j rate. Actually, the waterside worker i at 2s 4d an hour gets 27.3 per cent, j greater wages than the casual labourer i at 1 s 10d an hour. When the dispute was heard, Mr. Roberts placed before the court certain figures for the purpose of estab- j lishing that the minimum .rates of pay j for unskilled workers are not sufficient i to provide a fair standard of living for a man, his wife, and two children. It would be fallacious to fix a man, ; wife and two children—four souls in I all —as the basis upon which the wages ( of all adult workers, married or single, ! must b© fixed. A majority of the court has settled these questions, the chief being the rate for handling frozen produce, trimming coal in bunkers, appointment of leading hands and engagement for different classes of work. MR. MONTEITH’S OPINION It is clear that we only have a socalled basic wage, says Mr. Monteith in his dissenting opinion. The court has always accepted “the average family” as man, wife and two children. His Honour, Mr. Justice Frazer, in the pronouncement of May 8, 1922, at page 350, in discussing the “average family,” states:—“We in New Zealand have reckoned only two children to ‘the average family,’ but this is over the mark.” I believe that taking marired wageearners with families the average figure is about 2.40 per cent, children under sixteen years of age a family. As life is a state of constant change \\e j cannot treat a worker solely as an j economic unit. I simply say that £4 j Os Sd cannot in my opinion keep an ; average family of man, wife and two j children, which family is the average ; family legislated for by this court.