THE WAGES BONUS.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 291, 6 December 1920, Page 5

THE WAGES BONUS.

BASIS OF COMPUTATION. VARIATION OF PERIODS. EARLY DECISION EXPECTED. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLaNTitfOK, this day. When iho Arbitration Court imet this morning, Mr. Pryor (Employers' Federation) suggested that it would be better for the Court to givs judgment upon hie application before deakng with, any more applications for the !•/ uonus by individual unions.

Mr. Keanlon said lie was prepared to support this proposal on tie ground that the sooner the Court's decision was given the better. "But," went on -Mr. .Reardon, "since the case was completed we have discovered What we consider to 'be the cause of ail the division of opinion. The cause of it all k that tlie basis of v'ompnrtation selected is unsound. We would like, before the Court gives ito decision lo have an opportunity of putting that point of view before t'ne Court. The position actually is that the period selected as the basis oi computation wae the epidemic period—the one period, in our opinion, which should not have been selected. In measuring altitude, the see. level is taken as the base, -fust so, I take it, would any sound statistician, in computing increases in the cost of living, endeavour to get a basis which is normal. Actually the period decided on by- the Court happened to be. that which includes the ep'demiu period, which, co far as .prices are concerned, wae a period of explosions. If we applied the saimj system of measurement of altitude, >we would take the pea level as what it was at the time of the tidal wave.

Mr. Pryor pointed out that the first bonus period was -March to September, 1919, and that the epidemic occurred in November, 1918.

Mr. Reardon: But the basis for computation was tlie epidemic period. Mr. Justice Stringer: In March, 1919, we fixed the baeic wage and a certain bonus, and that must be taken to have cleared the matter up to that time. Rightly or wrongly, we did it. The Statistician's figures are taken out from then onwards.

Mr. McCombs (also representing the unions) argued that all the figures were from the basis of the six months ending March 31, 1919. He said that Mr. Pryor, himself, in arguing his case, had quoted the figures 1539, which was the average for six months prior to March, 1910. In that period the figure jumped from 1509 to 1603, and then dropped again. The mountain peak of prices was in the period with which the next six months was compared for purposes of arriving at the amount of bonus.

Judge Stringer replied that the court had put a question to the Statistician as to what, assuming that the wages and bonus at a given time were so much, it was necessary to add to compensate the worker for increase in the cost of living.

Mr. McCombs said that Mr. Pryor, having ;been granted a re-hearing on the ground that a mistake had been made, tbe union applied confidently for consideration of what they considered a mistake.

Judge Stringer asked the unions' representatives to forward a statement on the matter, and added that he would then consult the Statistician. If. it was necessary to have further discussion he would inform the parties.

It irae generally agreed that it would be desirable to announce the judgment of the court on the main bonus question before going on with individual claims, ■but the judge said any special circumstances would, of course, be investigated.