NEW BONUS.

Taranaki Daily News, 3 December 1920, Page 5

NEW BONUS.

FURTHER EVIDENCE TAKEN.

PROTESTS AGAINST PAYMENT. EFFECT ON GROCERY TRADE. By Association, Wellington, Dec. 2. Tbe heaving of the employers' appeal against 'the latest cost of living bonus of 9s to workers was resumed by the Arbitration Court to-day. Mr. Pryor, for the Employers' Associate, called Mr. H. D. Bennett, president of the Wellington Grocers' Association, who said that the grocery trade had to take due notice of the circumstances that a large portion of the turnover was derived from sales of goods the price of which was controlled. In that ease it was difficult to pas 3 on any increased working costs and they must appeal to somebody for redress. In 1914 the ratio of average wages to turnover was slightly over 9 per cent, /in 1920 the ratio had moved up to 9.8, ' and was only that because of the inflated values. The trade would have to pass on any increase in working costs, and any further increase would tend to drive the big shops out of business. Thirty or forty per cent of the turnover was derived from the sale of articles, the price of which was restricted by the Board of Trade. There had been reductions in the price of many lines, and it was the policy of the trade to unload stocks as much as possible; in fact, the weakening markets appeared to be almost demoralised, and had become so quite suddenly. When Mr. Pryor called Mr. MeVilly, general manager of railways, Mr. Reardon, on behalf of the unions, protested against the false atmosphere created round the hearing. The Arbitration Court had no authority to 'decide the wages of civil servants, who were not concerned with the Court in any way. They found, for the first time "in the history of the Court, the Prime Minister commenting upon the decision, and newspapers endeavoring to influence the Court. The possibilities of a financial crisis had also been introduced, and altogether a false atmosphere had been created for the purpose of injuring the workers who had no other redress than by appealing to the Court. HIGHER RAILWAY FARES. Mr. Justice Stringer said the Court must look at the broad point of view. The protest was supported by Messrs. McCombs and Bloodworth, the latter instancing the Court's decision to exclude the Board of Trade representative in the sugar dispute. The Court did not uphold the protest, stating that it was quite possible that Mr. McViDy would be able to show how the bonus would increase the cost of •living. Mr. R. W. MeVilly said that the railway servants had made it plain that they would expect the bonus of 9s if it was granted by the Gourt. The last increase granted was estimated to cost the department £BOO,OOO per annum, and the estimate would probably be exceeded. The granting of the 9s bonus would mean an additional expenditure by the department of £1,000,000 per annum, necessitating a further increase in the rates of passenger fares, making I these 50 per cent over the pre-war I rates. There was a point beyond which I rates could not be increased. Further increases would certainly mean a reduction of the services and a reduction iof the staffs. The result would be seriI ous.

Cross-examined by Mr. McC'ombs, Mr. MeVilly admitted that the balance of revenue over expenditure for the seven months of the financial year 1020 was £746,000. However, compared with last year the working expenses had increased by 11 per cent. The million pound increase was not all wages. Th,e department's expenditure would be increased by that amount and it could not eliminate the effect of the bonus on the cost of all articles required by. the department. The bonus would account for 68 per cent of the estimated million. . EFFECT ON POSTAL SERVICE." Arthur T. Markman, acting-Secretary of the Post Office, said the department's servants, had already asked for the bonus." Assuming the, 9s bonus, the increase in wages paid by the department would be between £230,000 and £250,000 per annum. Postal rates had recently been increased, but there had been a falling-off in business and it was likely that the estimated increase of revenue would not be reached. In Wellington alone the number of telegrams dropped by 600 or 700 a day. The rates had been increased as high as possible without seriously affecting the business. Owing to the falling-off of business the further increase in the rates would mean staff was being reduced weekly and a a serious falling-off, of business and retrenchment would follow. The department was not in a position to stand the increased bonus. The department's employees had been promised a further bonus when the cost of living passed beyond a certain point and that would be influenced by the decision of the Court.

Cross-examined, witness stated that the restriction on the telegrams of bookmakers had resulted in a loss to [ the department of between £BOOO and £IO,OOO per annum. Mr. W. H. Morton, city engineer and general manager of the tramways in Wellington, confirmed the remarks made by Mr. Pryor in his opening address pointing to the serious nature of the position facing the tramways. The nine shillings bonus would mean additional wages in Wellington of £15,000 per annum. The deficit already this year was £OOOO, but it was anticipated that it would be wiped off if the weather was fine. Already this year wages had been substantially increased. The cost of material supplied would be increased to meet the increased expenditure and fares would have to be increased. Traffic had fallen oil' as the result of the last increases and further increases in fares would surely result in a decreased volume of traffic. PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED. EMPLOYEES TALK OF BETRAYAL. COURT RESERVES .ITS DECISION. Wellington, Last Night. Mr. Bloodworth, addressing the Court, expressed the opinion that the present appeal of the' Employers' Association waa tho trran.t.eat fcatrayal at An agre«'

ment ever recorded in the industrial history of the country. A revision of tie bonus at six monthly periods had twelve montlis ago been adopted by the Court, and the acceptance of that decision was an agreement ;is binding as if it had been signed by the employers.

Mr. Justice Stringer said ho could not see that there was any breach of an agreement, because, first of all, lie could not see there was any agreement, and because in the second place it had always been open to the employers to show "relevant, considerations/' Mr. Reardon submitted that it was not Tight for the Court to go back on its public pronouncement. The employers should never have put the Court "in its present position. Did they think that it was possible for a Judge of the Court to alter his pronouncement and lay himself open to a charge of having had his decisions varied at the dictation bf the Prime Minister?

Mr. Pryor rose to protest against the suggestion that the Employers' Federation had endeavored in any way to inllueiice the Judge. .

Mr. Justice Stringer said he thought it would be better that Mr. Reardon should not make such observations. The employers' application was before the Court in a proper form, and the Court was there to determine the case on its merits.

The Court heard other addresses on both sides, tho last speaker being Mr. Pryor, who said: "I feel it is only fair to myself to say that there is no reason whatever for the remarks of Mr. Reardon and Mr. McCombs to the effect that the_ protest was' the result of either an artificial or spurious agitation. What has been done has only been decided upon as a result of the urgent representations by the employers generally, and after due deliberation by the federation as a whole on the question of what amount of bonus if any should be proposed for the Court's consideration. That bonus, for the current six months, should be 3s per week, thus giving the workers the benefit of the extra 2s they have received for four months, and also repaying the '2s extra they received for the latter six months. While I have discussed the question of tho amount of the bonus to be paid, the real claim I am making on behalf of the employers of the Dominion—and, indeed, I am entitled to say on behaif of the community as a whole—is that no further bonus whatever shpuld be paid. It is essential that I should make this point quite clear, so that it cannot be said that because I have made proposals with regard to the amount of the bonus I have in any way waived my contention that the Court should consider the question of not awarding a further bonus." The Court announced that it would take time to consider its decision.