A LIVING WAGE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7812, 3 June 1909, Page 1

A LIVING WAGE.

MR JUSTICE A'BECKETT'S DECISION.

Sitting m the State Court of Industrial! Appeal, ,Mr Justice A'Beckett gave his decision m connection with the f ellmongers' dispute. Mr Arthur (instructed by Mr J. Wolfe) appeared for the union, and Mr Mann (instructed by Messrs Wolla'ston and McComas) 1 for the employers. Mr Justice A'jßeckett said that, sitting for the first time m the Court of Industrial .Appeals, he was asked by the employees m the. fellmongers' trade to revise a determination as to the hours of labour and rates of payment. Like Mr Justice Hood, the first judge of the Court, he found the greatest difficulty m discovering from the Act what Parliament intended to be the governing considerations for the special boards, 1 and for the Court that heard appeals \ from them. ,He felt sure that the Legislature could not have intended the boards to be guided by one set of "considerations, and the Court by another, or that a Judge of the Supreme Court should be left to regulate hours of work and gradations of wages at his absolute discretion without any regard to prevailing usage or rate of pay. It was plain that the primary object of Parliament was to benefit the workers. But there was no indication anywhere that such an object was to be attained by any fanciful or even philanthropic mode, or by doing injustice to others. He had been urged, as was Mr Justice Hood, to fix a new standard on a liberal estimate of human needs, and of the provision for them that should establish .the just reward of labour, though doing so might cause an industrial upheaval that would shake all industries within the operation of the Act. He answered, as his predecessor did, that, on reading the Act, he could find lio indication of any intention that wages boards should resort -to such radical readjustment of the relations of'employer and employed. The Act intended wages boards, and not judges of the Supreme Court, to settle these matters. The boards had practically settled them, for appeals to the Court were few. . An appeal was given for the purpose of correcting the mistakes of the-Board, not to make a judge a social reformer, at liberty to begin anew on a system of his own or derived from sbihe sociological writer. From the evidence/he would conclude that there -had been an appreciable increase iri the cost of living during the last five years. Owing to fluctuation m -prices of food articles and rents there was not the permanence of altered conditions which would precede the ' making of what would practically be a permanent addition to wages.l No employer v would be listened to by a wages board if he came to ask for a reduction m wages because meat, bread, and rent had become cheaper since the last determination. Conceding that the increase spoken of by the employees might be found to be permanent, it did not follow that an all-round increase m wages should be enforced under the Acts whenever a rise m the' cost of living occurred. A general rise m the cost of living, followed by a corresponding rise m all wages, would surely mean ar\ additional advance m wages to follow, and so the matter would go on ad infinitum. ; If Mr Justice A'Beckett were now to raise the fellmongers' wag.es by reason solely of sucii an iricresst* m the cost' of living, as had been proved m the present case, he could not logically refuse to make the same. addition to wages m any trade that appealed to the Court. He would not make an alteration solely on this ground, but where ho had made an alteration that seemed to be justly called for on other grounds the increased cost of living had been an element m fixing its amount. Coming to his conclusions, Mr Justice A'Beckett said he would not increase the 36s paid for the ordinary yard hands. He would give foremen ■ scourers having one or more persons working under them 45s instead of 425, men m charge of limes 45s instead of 365, foreman of makers of trotters having one or more persons working under him 45s instead of 365, foreman of tanners 45s instead of 365, hands employed at fleshing machine 42s instead of 365, hands employed at burring machine 425. He had done little more so far than pick out of the crowd lor whom 36s was fixed as the minimum men who had been already discriminated and were, receiving higher pay.l In some instances no additional payment by the employers would occur. Employers would not forget that his determination did not mean that a good man should not receive more, but only that no nian employed m the various , capacities should receive less. The existing determination fixed 4d per dozen for stretching basils by hand, and 5d for setting down, and ho would award an additional £d a dozen m each instance. In regard to the rates paid to pullers, the employers asked for a uniform rate of 9d all the year round, instead of 7d and 9d. He declined to order a uniform-.rate, but would add |d a dozen to both rates. In regard to woolsorters, men paid by wages and on piecework were sorting side by side, and he thought it would be an arbitrary step to have nothing but a Avages system. If the parties could not agree, he would interfere m some way. The present minimum for wages was £2 2s, and some employers were paying £2 ss. The New riouth Wales award was £2 ss, and he fixed the same rate, and desired that the piecework prices should be fixed at what would give a trifle over £2 5s -working for a week of 48 hours.' In making his increases he had checked anything-that the employers could reasonably call extravagant. He could not suppose that any appreciable inducement to carry on business would be weakened by what he had done.* In regard to the question of a living wage, the decision of Mr Justice Higgins, sitting- m. a federal court under a federal act, did not bind Mr Justice A'Beckett if he dissented from it. He ought not' to follow it, but his construction of the .Victorian act involved no dissent, from the attractive doctrines of the harvester case. He concurred m all that was there said of what was; necessary to constitute the frugal comfort of the working man. On- the evidence before him as to household expenses, Mr Justice A'Beckett thought that the 42s a week fixed by Mr Justico Hj.ggiri?'' was a proper" allowance for a family of'five; but, even if he thought'he was 'bound to give a living wage of 42s to the lowest employee on the scale, he should not feel bound to lift all above him, and put distances at which they stood before ho was moved up. The act did not intend the board or the Court to fix the; living wage fp,r ft man. and famijy as' the; minin^um rate m all cases! Looking at" section' 122, he thought the living wage there" contempTated was the personal wage. It was a section to safeguard.' an endangered industry, a^d it would be a strange way of d°ip.g §° *P i*l?^ as a condition to its existence that the least it should p,ay to any of its employees should be a wage largo enough to support a man, wife and family. A wage of 36s a week was sufficient to support a single man. If the employees' contention were correct it would makp the' creation of wages boards injurious rathpr- than beneficial to the class 'intended %a benefit, and would conduce more to unemployment than to employment ni high wages. As a matter of consideration, Mr Justice A'Beckett held that the act did not prescribe as the lowest wage to be fixed by a wages board a Ayagc which woulcl support a man and his wife and | family m frugal comfort. There was no special appaal from his decision d ho had misconstrued the act m this respect. Parliament alone could correct his mifstakq. In con<3lußk>ri,"Mr. Justice A'.Beckptt eaid to hac} stated, ty>»s hid clewwon

was not the final determination, and he would hear, on a day to be fixed, what the parties might desire to say on the subjects touched upon—not, of course, to re-open the whole question, but to clear away any misapprehension. There might be a conference between the parties, and if an agreement were come to it might be advantageous to embody the results of the conference m the determination, m place of the recommendation m his decision as it stood.—Melbourne Argus.