ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1920, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

pm NEW BONUS,

DETAILS OP JWtZMXTi Bf taleetaph.—rress Assoel»Uon. Wellington, Dee. 13. In a reserved judgment the Arbitration Court awarded a bonus of three shillings. Giving judgment on the. bonus question, Mr. Justice Stringer stated that it had been shown clearly that, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding, the bouses granted to workers for, the period 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. Under the figures a further !)s bonus was arrived at on tho same erroneous basis. The correct .bonus for the last period was 7s, but since the total bonus over the whole period should have been 15s, and as 10s per week was already being paid, the proper amount for the laat period was ss. ■ After reviewing the financial and industrial conditions now prevailing in the Dominon and elsewhere the Court discussed very fuTly whether it was just and equitable to grant any further bonus at all. The Court regretted that there had not been some system of cooperation between the Arbitration Court which fixed wages, and the Board of Trade, which fixed prices, and had grave doubts as to whether the Court was justified u» granting any further increase but, taking into consideration the fact that from January 1 to October Ul the workers were receiving 2s per week.in excess of the correct amount, a fair and reasonable course was to make the bonus for the current six months 3s, which was in the Court's opinion as! great as was warranted. It was the judgment of the president alone, Mr. Scott holding that no bonus should he granted and Mr. Ma,' ,/; (is at least. ' I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. The Arbitration Court proceedings today were followed by a. large and representative gathering of employers and workers' officials. The judgroejt oi'tne President (Mr. Justice Stfmger) ■ took over hali-an-hour to read, j He recalled the employers' objections to' the 9s bonus, first on the ground of the erroneous computation of- th* Statistician; second, on the ground that the industrial and financial conditions were not such as to warrant any bonus at all. . ' The operation of the Act of 1918 was discussed. The original basic wage was Is 7%d per hour for skilled,- lg 4Ad to Is 6d for semi-skilled and Is 3Jd' for unskilled workers. To this 2>/ a d per hour was added (,o compensate the workers for the further incroase in tho cost of living up to March .11, 1919. It was quite impossible to re-open the question as to the basis, alleged by the workers to be unfair. Regarding- the employers' contention it was clearly shown that, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding, the bonuses granted for the periods ended September, 191(1, and March, 1920, were based by the Acting-Statistician on the monthly index figures, instead of, as intended by the Court, on tho moving average index figures for food, rent, fuel, light and clothing. It was evident that on such a basis the bonus for March—September, 1919, was 2s per week, September* 1919 March, 1920, to per week, March, 1920 —September, 1920, 7s per week. It was evident that the correct bonus for the last period was 7s, not 9s, and the total bonus for the whole period Iss per week, and since 10s had already been paid the proper amount for the last period was 5s per week. In reference to the second contention of the employers the Court referred to the argument befor the bonus legislation was introduced that the increasedcost of living should be borne by the whole community. A special statute was always interpreted by the Court to mean that, unless relevjjiC considerations were shown to the contrary, any increases since the award in the cost of living should be met by correspondingly increased wages. The interpretation was never challenged by the employers. The Court regretted that on the passing of the Act some attempt was not made to,control the increase in tho price of commodities as tlie result of the increased wages paid to workers. It might have been possible to co-ordinate the functions of the Board of Trade with those of the Arbitration Court, so that no increase in the price o 4 f commodities as the result of increased wages of workers in the industry should be allowed unless the Board was first satisfied that the profit of the industry were not already sufficient to meet such increased wages. If so such increase should be not more than was fair and reasonable. In the absence of such control many, if not most of- the employers, made additional profits while the workers were deprived to some extent of the benefits of the im| - 6ased wages and the. whole community put under contribution to enhance profits already quite high enough. "The employer is concerned in this way,'' said the Judge, "and I feel satisfied a good deal of what may be called automatic profiteering has taken place."

His HonQr reviewed the world financial and industrial position, which showed an alarming increase of unonrployincut, quoting the London Times, various cables and the Australian Arbitration Court judgments. The question was whether it was time to call a halt. The position was not so acute in jS r ew Zealand as elsewhere, hut symptoms were appearing. A further question was the reflex action with regard to workers employed in the public services, whore any increase of prices or rates had a disastrous effect on a large body of consumers.

"Taking ail these matters into consideration I have tlie gravest doubts," said the President, "whether I am justified in granting any further increase of wages at the present time. In view of the fact that the bonus, though payable in the future, is in respect of (he six months past .1 think the workers should be granted some measure of relief, which should be kept as low as is reasonahly possible in the interest of the community generally and the workers themselves.

"The correct amount, of the additional bonus calculated on the intended basis is 5s per week, but the workers from January' 1 to October 31 were receiving 2s in excess of the correct arnount. It is fair and reasonable that the over payment should lie adjusted l>y reducing any new bonus by a similar amount for the six months, when a fresh adjustment of the bonus will he made and the restoration of the 2s given effect to. On such an adjustment this would reduce the bonus from Ss to 3s, which in my opinion is as great as is warranted by the present flrwnatal and industrial out. ioefei