STRONG PROTEST

Wairarapa Times-Age, 17 June 1938, Page 8

STRONG PROTEST

AGAINST CLOTHING TRADE AWARD VIEWS OF CANTERBURY EMPLOYERS. CRITICISM OF SECOND COURT. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, This Day. “One of the most astounding and illogical documents which so far has come from either or our present Arbitration Courts,” is the description applied by the secretary of the Canterbury Employers’ Association (Mr D. I. MacDonald) to the Dominion Clothing Trades Award recently issued by the Second Court, of which Mr Justice Hunter is President. Mr MacDonald said the First Court had endeavoured to establish a wage basis and was also reimposing existing conditions in relation to other matters unless very strong ''evidence was brought by either party in support of a change. The advent of the Second Court had largely nullified this effort, and because of the lack of a uniform policy an almost chaotic condition existed. “Today parties in the Conciliation Council have no clear understanding of the policy of the Courts on many important issues, and so it cannot be wondered at that union advocates prefer to gamble on the inconsistency of at least one of the Courts rather than make agreements in Conciliation Council,” said Mr MacDonald. Dealing with the new Clothing Trades Award, Mr MacDonald said there were 25 clauses. Of these 13 were either of a purely machinery nature or were settled in Conciliation Council. Of the other 12 clauses, the Court had altered 10 materially in favour of the union and had left two as they were set out in the old award. In the new award, clauses which had been agreed upon by the parties for more than 20 years, and which were included in the 1937 award by Mr Justice Page, had been altered to the disadvantage of the employer without one shred of evidence being produced by the advocate for the workers’ union. “While, in accordance with the only policy which the Second Court seems to have —to increase wages and further restrict industry —some increase in wages was to be expected, the substantial increase granted to women will be calamitous for the industry and possibly for the workers who depend on it for their livelihood,” Mr MacDonald added. “There is much more in the award to leave the employers both dissatisfied and perturbed. Take, for example, the astounding implication in one paragraph of the memorandum that the Court cannot be concerned with the ability of the industry to pay. This will come as a rude shock to many New Zealand manufacturers who are struggling to maintain and build up productive industries in face of strong overseas competition. They know now where they stand —at least insofar as the Second Court of Arbitration is concerned. The pronouncements of the Court have always given some recognition to the condition of the industry.”