Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

COST OE LIVING.

ARBITRATION COURT DISCUSSION.

The Christchurch sittings of the Court of Arbitration were resumed yesterday, beforo his Honour Mr Justice Stringer, and Messrs W. Scott and J. A. McCullough.

Increased wages or increased bonuses, consequent on the increased cost of living, were applied for in the ease of four unions.

The Christchurch Plumbers' and Gasfitters' Union asked that the present bonus should be increased from 2d an hour to Gd an hour; the wages are Is od for journeymen, and Is Gd for registered workers. Tho Christchurch United Boilermakers' Union asked that its war bonus should be increased from lid to 8d an hour; the wago3 are Is 6d an hour. Both these applications were mado under clauses in the awards that allow bonuses to bo rovised during the award's currency.

Tho Canterbury Coachworkers' Union asl:o:l that the wages should be increased on a flat rate from Is 6d to Is lOd an hour. The Chrstchurch Iron and Brass Moulders' Union asked that the wages of journeymen (Is 7sd) and of maehine hands (Is 4Jd) should bo increased to 2s. These two applications were mado under clause 18 of the War Regulations Act of last year, which empowers the Court to alter an award if the cost of living justifies the alteration.

Mr C.-Renn appeared for all tho unions.

When the coachworkers' case was called, his Honour asked if it would satisfy the union if the Court increased the wages to Is 7id, and gave a war bonus of 2sd, making tho total increase asked.

Mr Renn agreed to this, but Mr J. W. Boon, for the employers, dissented.

In regard to the boilermakers, Mr Renn said that the union was very modest, as it did not ask for an increase in proportion to the increased cost of living. Mr F. Cooper, for the omployers, opposed tho application. His Honour asked if the plumbers and gaslittcrs would accept the Wellington award, which increased the wages of journeymon to Is 9d, and o? registered workers to Is lOd.

Mr Renn said that the union would accept the Wellington conditions. Mr Cooper said that the employers agreed that all workers had to be compensated for tho increased cost of living. At the same time, there was no reason why, because rents increased 15 per cent in Wellington, and declined 3 per cent, in Christchurch, workers in this city should receive the same wagos as workers in Wellington. _ If wages increased at the same rate in one place because they had been increased in another place, there would bo no end .to the confusion. He would agree to bonuses that would give the mon Is 9d and Is 10d an hour, but not-to a flat increase. What he objected to was arbitrarily _ following the rate 3 awarded in Wellington. The principle was not sound.

His Honour said that there would bo trouble if there were different rates 'of wages in different cities amongst the same class of workers.

Mr W. Scott (employers' assessor} said that before the war the Court placed all workers in any class in the Dominion on the same basis. Why should they not receive the same increase nowP

Mr Cooper said that Wellington was the most costly city in the Dominion to live in. It should not be taken as a guide for other places. jjis Honour said that the Government Statistician, when the Wellington moulders' dispute was heard, was asked to supply figures doaling with the increased cost to them since the war began in proportion to their earnings. The figures showed that they would require 28.4 per cent, more now to purchase what they had purchased before the war.

Mr Cooper said that the increased cost in Christchurch was 24 per cent. The Wellington figures were for only one month. They should cover a period. They could not bo accepted as a proper basis for argument, because rent and food, and some other items in Christchurch showed different results from those in Wellington. Rent, for instance, had increased more in Wellington than in Christchurch. The Statistician had confined his results to Wellington, and there was dangor in accepting them as applying to other places. His Honour said that the Court would ask tho Statistician to prepare figures as to the increased cost of living to Christchurch plumbers and gasfitters on the same basis as his figures affecting Wellington plumbers and gasfitters. The Court would ascertain definitely his methods, and would ask him to prepare figures for a period instead of for one month. He would be asked to attend the Court in Christchurch.

Mr Cooper said that i£ was decidedly wrong; to nmkn Dominion awards on "Wellington figures. Mr Renn said that it might he necessary to differentiate between Christchurch Ashhurton, and Timaru.

Mr Cooper said that generally the cost of living was lower in country places than in cities, and a rate of increased cost fixed for the cities mipht be safely applied to the country in incrensinrt wages there.

Mr .T. A. Mpnullouph (workers' assessor') - said that for some years f'wnrn was the most. costly town in New Ho did not know if it was so still.

As to the iron and brass moulders, Mr Conner paid that he would a'rrree to Is 9d for iourncymon and Is (ttd for machine hands, instead of the flat rate of "*5 ricVod hv the employes.

Hi» Honour said tho Court would consider its decisions in all tho disputes.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19190322.2.59

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16478, 22 March 1919, Page 9

Word Count
913

COST OE LIVING. Press, Volume LV, Issue 16478, 22 March 1919, Page 9

COST OE LIVING. Press, Volume LV, Issue 16478, 22 March 1919, Page 9