WAGE REDUCTION ORDER.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20272, 25 June 1931, Page 6

WAGE REDUCTION ORDER.

APPLICATION BY TALLY CLERKS' UNION. COURT RESERVES DECISION. \ An application for exclusion from the terms of the General Order reducing wages by 10 per cent, was heard in .the Arbitration Court yesterday, before Mr Justice Frazer, Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative), and Mr. A. L. Monteith (employees' representative), when the Lyttelton Ships' Tally Clerks' Industrial Union sought exclusion in three grounds: (a) That tlie casual nature of the employment warranted exemption; (b) that the order would cause undue hardship, and (c) the exceptional nature of 55 per cent, of the parties to the award. The application, which was the first of its kind to be heard in New Zealand, was supported by Mr G. McDonald, for tho union, and opposed by Mr D. I. Macdonald, for the employers. On behalf of the union, Mr G. McDonald stressed the casual -nature of the tally-clerk's work, and claimed that in the last two years it had become •more casual than ever, because of the increase in size of tho union and tor various other reasons. The union had grown from a membership of .53 in 1023 to 80 at March 31st, 1031 In addition the - importation of petrol in bulk form had meant a loss of 3950 working hours in the year, employers had begun to use ship hands instead of members if the union as niglitwatchmen, junior pursers, or "gunners" had been doing tally work and thero had been a general de clino in tho shipping trade. The average wage of tho members of the union, he contended, was £2 15s 6d a week, 15s Id less tlian in 1925. From this certain reductions had to be made, and, when tho 10 per cent, was finally taken off, it left a weekly wage of £2 6s lOd. He quoted averages made on tho earnings of several tallvclorks over periods in 1930, and estimated periods in 1931, showing that the wage, less all reductions, might fall as low as £1 19s, or rise as high as £3 ss. He pointed out that the argument that a reduction in wages would allow the employers to take on more men could not possibly apply to their union,, and he concluded by appealing to the Court to grant tho appeal until such time as the award expired. The Employers' Case. Ou behalf of tho employers, Mr 1). I. Macdonald quoted his Honour's own words in Wellington to the effect 'iat a union must have very special grounds to gain exemption. This policy had been followed after tho General Order of 1922. He held that the questions of the casual nature of the employment and the undue hardship caused to the tally clerks had already been argued in Wellington, i.nd could not be brought up now as special grounds. The agreement under which the tally clerks oporatod was made in April, 1930, and the conditions on which they were arguing had. been relevant then. They were not relevant now, however, and were not sufficient to put this union outside the general body of employees throughout the Dominion. .Mr Macdonald claimed that tho Tuion's spokesman had painted the case a little too black in the wages figures he had quoted. For last year lie had averaged tho wages for every member of the union while they were iu work at £3 18s-7d, and " for the first 21 weeks of this year at £3 lis Id, which was not near the hardship mark, evea if the hardship mark wcro a relevant fact in tho case. Mr Macdonald stressed again his contentions tliat the questions of casualness and undue hardship had already been argued in Wellington, and could not be adduced as grounds for the exclusion of any union fronf the terms of the General Order. In reply to the employers' case, Mr G. McDonald again dealt with the wages question, and again alleged hardship, pointing out that tho employers'wage figures were an average only over working hours. "We have quite a number of theso applications coming on, and we think it desirable that we should have a number of them before us before we give our decision," said his Honour. "Some of ibem* especially that of the waterside workers, might directly affect the decision in. this case. Decision will bo reserved. If r of course, we decide to grant the application, our decision will bo retrospective to the date on which the Genieral Order came into effect, so that no one will lose anything by a delay of two or three weeks.