COST OF LIVING.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3652, 14 December 1920, Page 5

COST OF LIVING.

ARBITRATION COURT'S DECISION PBEVIQUS BONUSES EXCESSIVE. A WELLINGTON, Dec. 13.

In a reserved judgment the Arbitration Court awarded a bonus of 3/ per week. Judge Stringer stated that he had been shown clearly that owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding, bonuses granted to workers for the per- : aods ended September, 1919, and March ; 1920, were based on calculations made by the acting Government statistician on the basis of the monthly index figures instead of, as intended by the Court on the moving average index figures. Further, the 9/ bonus was arrived at on the same erroneous basis. The correct bonus for the last period was 7/, but, since the total bonus over the whole period should have been 15/, and ; as 10/ per week was.already being*paid, the proper amount for the last period was 5/. After reviewing financial and industrial conditions now prevailing in the Dominion and elsewhere the Court discussed very fully whether it wasi just and equitable to grant any further bonus at all. They regretted there had not been some system of co-o!peration between the Arbitration Court (which fixed wages) and the the Board of Trade (which fixed prices). He had the gravest doubt as to whether the Court was justified in granting' any further increase, but, taking into consideration the fact "that from January 1 to October 31 workers were receiving 2/ per week in excess of the correct amount, it was fair and reasonable that the overpayment should be adjusted by making the bonus for the current six months 3/, which in the Court's opinion, as great a sum as was warranted. This was the judgment of the president alone, Mr Scott holding that no bonus should be granted, and Hr McCullough that the bonus should be 5/ at least. Delivery of the officals' judgment, the President, Mr Justice Stringer^

took over half an hour to read. He recalled the employers? objections to the 9/ bonus, first on the ground that it was based on an erroneous computation by the Statistician; 'second, that industrial and financial conditions re not such as to warrant any bonus at all The operations of the Act of 1918 were discussed. -The orginal basic wage was 1/7J per hour for'skilled, l/ih to 1/6 for semi-skilled; and l/3£ for unskilled labour. To this 21d per hour was added to compensate ■workers for a further increase in the cost of living up to March 31, 1919. It was quite impossible to re-open the question, as to the basis alleged by workers. It would be unfair. Regarding the employers' contention it was cleariy shown that owing ■ to an unfortunate misunderstanding the bonuses granted for the periods ended September, 1919, and March, 1920, were* based by the Acting Statistician on monthly index figures a9 intended by the court, on the moving average index figures—food, rent, fuel, light, and clothing. It was evident on such a basis that the bonus \. of March and September, 1919 ; should have been of 2/ a week, September 19 to March 20 of 6/ per week, March 4 to September, 1920, of 7/ a week. It was evident that the correct bonus for. the last period should have been 7/, not 9/. The total bonus for the whole period being 15/ per week. And since 10/ was already being paid, the proper amount for the last period was 5/ per week. The Court regrettted that, on the passing of the Act, some attempt was not made to control the increase In the prices of commodities as the result of increased wages paid to worKers. It might have been possible to coordinate the functions of the Board of Trade with those of the Arbitration Court.

His Honour reviewed the - world's financial industrial position to show an alarming increase of unemployment,- quoting the London Times, various cables, and Australian Arbitration Court judgments. "Taking all these matters into consideration, /I have the vest doubts 7 said the President, "whether the Court is justified in granting any further increase of wages at the present time. The correct amount of the additional bonus, is calculated on the intended basis of 5/ per week, but workers from the. Ist of January to the 31st October were receiving 2/ in' excess of the correct amount of what was fair and reasonable. Over-payment ; would be adjusted by reducing any ■few bonus of similar amount for six months when a fresh adjustment of the bonus will be made, and a restoration of 2/ given effect to on such an adjustment). This would reduce the bonus from" 5/ to 3/, which in my •opinion, is as great as is warranted by the present financial and industrial outlook 1 ."''...■