RISE IN COSTS OR WAGES

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23080, 24 July 1940, Page 10

RISE IN COSTS OR WAGES

PROTECTION SOUGHT FOR BUILDERS

CHANGES AFTER CONTRACT

IS LET

[From Our Parliamentary Reporter.]

WELLINGTON, July 23. Protection for builders, contractors and sub-contractors dealing with either the Government or with individuals against rises in wages and costs of materials after contracts have been signed is sought in a petition presented by Mr W. M. C. Denham (Government, Invercargill) in the House of Representatives to-day. The petition is that of Gray Brothers, Ltd., builders, of Invercargill, and 56 others, and it seeks legislation making such rises the responsibility of the customer. Particular mention is made of Government building contracts. The petition asks that legislation should be passed providing that any increase in the wages of workers under any award, or bv general order of the Arbitration Court made after the date of any fixed contract, and the cost of any materials to be provided by the contractor in excess of ruling prices at the time for the contract, should be wholly borne by the person for whom the work is to be performed. It also asks that the terms of all Government contracts should be amended to provide similarly that the increased costs mentioned should be borne by the Crown or the State Department concerned.

The petitioners are all builders, contractors, or sub-contractors, and they say that in the terms of the contracts 'they are bound to perform work at fixed prices that take no cognisance of increased cost of goods, or the possibilitv of increased wages. Contractors consequently face a serious loss. They are prejudiced in their trade by the general conditions under which building contracts are carried out for the Government, in that they are required to submit a fixed price, although sellers of materials ipay raise prices with the consent of the Price Investigation tribunal, and that wage rates may be altered. Contractors, it is claimed, are expected ,to risk a substantial, loss, as any tender protecting them against such rises is invalid and is rejected.