WAGE STABILISATION

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 224, 20 September 1921, Page 7

WAGE STABILISATION

THE UNDERTAKING IN MAY. I LABOUR ADVOCATE'S VIEWS. (Bj Telegraph. -Special to - Star.") WELLINGTON, this day. One of the advocates who argued Labour's appeal against the stabilisation judgment uftthc Arbitration Court was Mr. MeCombs. the member for Lyttclton. lie visited Wellington this week-end, and gave your correspondent his views on the position which led to Mr. McCulloupli's resignation, corroborating the Intter's interpretation of the stabilisation agreement, and contending that prices have not fallen at anything like the ratio of the Court's reduction in wages. While not opposed to the principle of stabilisation. Mr. MeCombs contended that the Court's basis is unfair to the workers, because there would have to be a drop of HID points in the cost uf living index figures in six months to square with the decreased wages, wherens the index numbers fur four months showed a drop of only 30 points. Moreover, the bonus increases came long after increased prices, and if wages full in proportion to the cost of living, wages real and nominal will be 20 to 25 per cent below New Zealand's pre-war standard.

"Holding those views, wliirh arc based on irrefutable facts." Mr. MeCombs said, "1 was naturally very critical of every clause in the Arbitration Court's stabilisation of wage* pronouncement. ] noticed that, while the Court was most emphatic in stating that wages would bf stabilised fur a year, the pronouncement concluded with words that were entirely out of keeping with the rest of the pronouncement! The Court stated that in the interests of employers and workers alike a system of stabilisation is highly desirable at the present time: and then the concluding paragraph seemed to be altogether out of touch with the rest of the pronouncement, stating, 'It is not intended to take away the right of either party to an award or industrial agreement to make application to tfce Court under the existing legislation, but the Court will require proof of extraordinary curcumstances before departing from the principles herein laid down.' Mr. McCullough explained that this paragraph was not in the original draft, and had only been inserted because the law required the Court to hear and consider applications, further that three members of the Court had agreed to make the stabilisation pronouncement a reality. During the course of appeal proceedings, in which I represented the Wellington Council, Judge Frazer made it perfectly clear that, so far as it was within the Court's power, it would guarantee stabilisation of wages; that the Court would want evidence of a very special nature to justify its departing from it, something in the nature of a cataclysm, or some other unforeseen disaster. The reply to Mr. McCullough issued by llr. Justice Frazer and Mr. Scott refers to two draftings of the concluding paragraph, but, while referring to the number of drafts of the pronouncement, it makes no reference to the fart that the original draft did not contain either of the paragraphs they mention. The above is my recollection of what 1 was told last May and of the impressions I gained in Court during the hearing of the appeal, and, as far as they go. confirm Mr. McCullouglrs version absolutely. It is idle to say that if such a version is correct the Court would be in the position of prejudicing every case, because, even with the concluding paragraph added, and no matter what interpretation was placed thereon, the pronouncement, if adhered to, would involve the Court, in a prejudgment of most cases. Mr. McCullough's version in May and now is thnt members of the Court entered into an honourable agreement regarding interpretation of a judgment, as published which differed very slightly, if at all. from the pronouncement as originally drafted."