THE NEW BONUS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLI, Issue 9392, 14 December 1920, Page 5

THE NEW BONUS.

THREE SHILLINGS A WEEK.

DECISION OF THE COURT.

THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION

8 ; (I'er Press Association.) ,: WELLINGTON, December 13. In giving the judgment of the Arbi- [ tration Court reducing the new:bonus from 9s per week as awarded at Christg church to 3s, the president, Mr Justice Z Stringer, dealt exhaustively with the t arguments, pro and eon;, adduced bey fore the' Court a few days ago. ' >""• , '.'With regard," he,said, "to the 3 contention of the employers- that the j Statistician's computation of the bonus j upon which we made our announce- -- ment .as beforementioned was., erron- : t eous, it was shown clearly that, owing . to an unfortunate misunderstanding, ! which was explained at the hearing, | the bonuses granted to workers for thej > periods ending September, 1919, and' i March, 1920, were, based upon calcula- j » tions made-by the Acting-Government' ; Statistician on the basis of monthly j ■ index figures, instead of, as intended j : by the Court, the moving average I i figures for food, rent, fuel ■ and light! and- clothing, and, further, that the! bonus now , under consideration - had, I been arrived at on the same erroneous! basis:. It is not disputed that ?if the , computation of bonuses had been made on the moving average index numbers, |as intended by the Court, the bonus for each period would have been as follows:—.-■•' March-September, 1919—M per hour, or 2s per week. , September, 1919-March, / 1920—1-id' ! per hour; or 6s per week;' ; '/ ' March, 1920-September, 1920—l|d •■.••■•'. per- hour, or 7s per '■■. week. ■•' -' , ."It 1 is evident, therefore, that the! correct bon.us. for the last period < is.-/7s j and not 9s, as previously announced; but since the total amount of the bonus over; the whole ::period should j have, been 3|d per hour, or 15s per j week, and s'incevi2£d' ; pe r houry' oHlOsper week, is already beiag paid, the \ proper amount to be paid .for the last period is the difference of l}d* per hour,, or 5s per week.".,,' : Board and Court. "It might, it seems to me, have been possible," said his Honor, "to co-ordin-': ate the functions of the Board of Trade with those of the Arbitration Court in such a way that no increase in the'cost of commodities as a result of the increased wages to. the workers engaged in an industry producing- -such commodities should have been allowed, unless the Board of Trade were first satisfied that the profits of the industry were not already sufficient to meet such increased wages, or in the event of it being thought proper-to allow. an> increase in the price.... of commodities affected/ that such an increase was not more than fair and reasonable. In the absence of such control the conditions of trade during and since the war have been such that many, if not most.. of the employers, irrespective of their former' profits, have been able to increase the prices of their commodities by the amount of increased. wages, plus a considerable profit thereon with the result that while their workers were deprived to some extent of the benefit of their increased wages the whole community has been put. under contribution 'to enhance the profits, possibly already quite -high, '.enough; of the employer concerned. -In this way I feel satisfied a gpod deal of what may be called automatic profiteering has taken

, Economic Unrest.

The president then reviewed the economic unrest at Home, in Canada and in Australia, and' the indications afforded of grave social and economic disturbances, and proceeded:—"Taking all these matters into consideration, ii have the gravest doubts as to whether I am justified in granting any further increases in wages at the present time. In-view, ■. however, of the fact that the bonus, whatever the amount may be, although payable in the future, is in respect of the six months ending September last I think the workers should be granted some measure of relief, which," however, . for -reasons before mentioned and in the view I take of tho circumstances, should be kept as low as it Reasonably can, both in the interests, of the community generally and of'the workers themselvesv The correct'amount of the additional bonus calculated -6n our intended basis is as before,-stated,-5s per week, but.taking into consideration the; 'fact that from the first day'pf January to the thirtyfirst day of October, 1920, the worker? were receiving 2s per week in excess of tke'-correct amount for that period, it is, I think;, fair and reasonable that over-payment should be adjusted by. reducing any- new ' boni\s-. by a similar amount foiv the period of six months, when a fresh adjustment of the bonus will be made, and restoration of the 2s will-be given effect to on such adjustment. This would reduce the bonus for the current six months from 5s to 3s, which is, in my opinion, as great as is warranted, having regard to the present financial and industrial outlook in New Zealand as disclosed by evidence, adduced at the hearing. It was quite impossible to reopen tlie question as to the original basis of the bonus which was alleged by the workers to be unfair. With reference to the second contention of the employers, the Court referred to the argument before the bonus legislation was introduced that the increased cost of living should be borne, by the whole community. The special statute had always been interpreted by the Court to mean that, unless revel'ant considerations were shown to the contrary, any increases since an award in the cost of living should be met by a corresponding increases in wages. The interpretation was never challenged by the employers.

A "Lone Hand" Judgment. "In conclusion," said the Judge, "I have to say that I alone am responsible for this judgment and the opinions expressed thereon. Both of the other members of the Court disagree with my determination, which I have not arrived at without much anxious consideration. Mr Scott thinks the financial and industrial Conditions of the Dominion are such that no bonus a,t all should be granted at the present time, while Mr McCullough, on the ; other \ hand, thinks no sufficient 'grounds have been shown to justify the Court in refusing the workers the full bonus of 9s per week,/and that in any view of the case the bonus should not be less than 5s per week. If each member of "'the Court adhered to his uvii opinion, a deadlock would result, 's the decision of the_ .Court -can only '■•o given by a majority of- members. Is, however we\all agree that, it is ■-■.' \ '"iya'ble i" the interests of em- ( '

ployers and workers and the community generally- that there should, be a definite determination of the questions raised in these proceedings, the 'others 'members have withdrawn their objec-. tions so that my decision may' become^ that of tho Cq'urt.' ; '. - .■'.--'