EFFECT ON BASIC WAGE

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23946, 13 May 1943, Page 6

EFFECT ON BASIC WAGE

COST OF LIVING BONUSES ARBITRATION COURT HEARING A ruling on the application of the "cost-of-living bonuses” to the basic wage fixed in 1936 will shortly be given by the Arbitration Court, in a case heard in Christchurch yesterday morning. Although the dispute involved only one employee, the finding of the Court will be noted with considerable interest by industrial authorities throughout the Dominion. Mr Justice Tyndall presid’d and with him were Messrs Cecil Prime (employers) and A. L. Montoith (workers). The Inspector of Awards (Mr S. E. McGregor) said that the matter requiring interpretation was that whereas the basic wage was a general order, the bonuses were applied to award rates only. Could the basic wage be read as a general amendment to all existing awards? For the Retail Shop Assistants’ Union, Mr K. G. Archer said that the position could be clarified by consideration of a hypothetical claim for short payment of wages. A person aged 21 alleging that fire prescribed wage had not been paid would base his claim on the award and would claim that the basic wage order applied to the award. There was a grave anomaly if a minor working under an award was entitled to the bonuses and a new adult employee, who was not subject to starting wages and increments because of 'the basic wage, was precluded from the benefits of the bonuses. Minimum rates under awards for workers who would reach 21 after, a period of employment all exceeded the basic wage, and in fairness and equity it was clear that basic wage workers had a just claim for the bonuses. The phrase “rate of remuneration” was quoted as the figure to which the bonuses would be added under the order and the basic wage could positively be classed as such. No Redress “It certainly appears significant that no provision is made for redress for failure to comply with the basic wage order other than as a breach of an award, and in those circumstances it seems that it must be taken as part and parcel of awards generally and therefore receive the benefits of the bonuses,” said Mr Archer, continuing his argument in the afternoon. His Honour commented that this point would be noted carefully. His Honour; If a wage order was made reducing award rates, are you prepared to say that that should similarly affect the basic rate? Mr Archer; I think I should have to concede that, your Honour. ■ Later Mr Archer said he would have to consider the question, as he did not see that a converse order would necessarily apply. It seemed that a separate alteration to the basic wage order would be required. His Honour then questioned Mr Archer’s attitude. It seemed odd, he said, that Mr Archer should seek to have the basic wage regarded as an award scale for purposes of increases and yet not in the same category if a reduction was contemplated. The reduction of the basic wage would require different machinery, replied Mr Archer. For increases a dual effect shou.d be given to raise award and basic wages. In making a reduction the award rates would directly alter under a general order, but since the basic wage was a minimum figure, a separate variation would be required. Code for Variation A complete code for the variation of the basic wage was provided in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act. 1936, and since this had not been invoked It was plain that any orders made under the Rates and Wages Emergency Regulations, such as cost-of-living bonuses, had no effect, said Mr H. F. Butland for the employers. Mr Rutland said he subscribed to the view expressed by his Honour in his question that if Mr Archer’s argument was sound, should a reduction order not apply dually to award and basic wages. Decision was reserved. Approval for New Agreements The approval of the Court to an industrial agreement made since the enforcement of the Economic Emergency Stabilisation Regulations was sought by the Christchurch City Council (Mr M. E. Lyons) and the Christchurch Caretakers' and Cleaners’ Union (Mr W. H. Mathlson). Mr Mathison said female employees’ wages had been increased by 7s 6d a week and male by 2s 6d, and there had been increases of 2d and Id an hour respectively, for female and male casual help. The agreement had been entirely mutual and the ratification of the Court was required formally under the Stabilisation Regulations. Mr Lyons said that the council had made a general increase of 2s 6d a week to its employees. Other departments had received the benefit and the cleaners were being offered theirs in conformity. The higher female wage was compensation for the introduction of broken shifts. Similar circumstances were explained in the general increase offered In new industrial agreements by the City Council to its electrical inspectors (Mr T. Nuttall) and its engineering staff (Mr G. T. Thurston). Managers and Unionism Whether clause 3a (1) of the New Zealand retail chemists' assistants’ award exempts the managers of chemists’ shops from the requirements of the award was a question put to the Arbitration Court yesterday morning. The clause says:— “Managers shall be paid not less than £6 10s a week, but shall not otherwise be subject to the terms of this award except that they shall be allowed a fortnight’s holiday on full pay annually, at a time to be agreed upon between employer and employee.” The Court must accept one of two alternative opinions, said Mr K. G. Archer, representing the Canterbury Retail Shop Assistants’ Union. Either that the No. 2 Court had misconceived its full duty under section 18 of the act by attempting to make an unlawful exemption from the clause and acted in a manner that was ultra vires; or that clause 15 placed the obligation of ensuring union membership on the employer and was in no way affected by clause 3a (1), which referred only to employees. ’"The view which I suggest that the Court should take is that the employer should see by clause 15 that he is restricted to employing only members of the union and that having employed or promoted a person (who must have been a union member during his period of qualification), he would note from clause 3a fl) his obligations to that particular employee as a manager,” said Mr Archer. “By the rules of the union only retail shop assistants may become members, and under the Shops and Offices Act it is clear that the manager is classed as an occupier and is quite distinct from a shop assistant. The rules are not wide enough to admit a manager to membership of the union and he is therefore 1 not subject to this award," said Mr H. F. Butland, representing the Canterbury Employers’ Association. Decision was reserved. The case was heard in reference to Elder Masson, manager of one of a number of chemist’s shops owned by J. H. Reynolds and Sons. Ltd.