40-HOUR WEEK CASE

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25020, 31 October 1946, Page 7

40-HOUR WEEK CASE

Australian Court Decision ACCEPTANCE OF PRINCIPLE (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 11 p.m.) MELBOURNE. Oct. 30. The Acting-Chief Justice (Mr Justice Drake-Brockman) announced today that the Federal Arbitration Court had accepted broadly the principle that the 40-hour week should be the basis of working hours in Australia, subject to the special circumstances of individual industries. He added that he hoped the declaration would shorten the Court’s deliberations on the 40-hour week case. The hearing has now been proceeding for several months. On behalf of the employers it was stated that they could not assent to any suggestion that 40 hours was a desirable present standard for industry. Earlier Mr Justice Drake-Brockman made a bitter attack on Mr J. J. Brown, secretary of the Australian Railways Union, for his promise that there would be an immediate increase of 10s to 15s a week in the basic wage. Describing the statement as utterly ridiculous, Mr Justice Drake-Brock-man said: “This man’s irresponsible and loose demagogy exposes his incompetence to appreciate these great issues and embarrasses not the Court but parties and the Government. “Members of the Court have been amazed to read reports of speeches made by various people concerning the basis on which the transport strike was brought to an end,” said Mr Justice Drake-Brockman. “They have been concerned by statements attributed to Mr Brown, who apparently has been the spokesman for the striking unions. Such utterances as Mr Brown’s and others are fallacious and mendacious and were deliberately made for the purpose of deceiving not only the Railways Union but also other unions and the public. Mr Brown and others have tried to usurp and exercise the functions of the Court” Mr Justice Drake-Brockman denied that the Court had been privy or a party to arrangements alleged to have been made and also denied that there had been undue delay in hearing the 40-hour week case. Counsel for the Commonwealth Government said the Prime Minister (Mr Cbifley) had authorised him to give a complete and unqualified denial of the statements predicting an early increase in the basic wage. Mr Brown’s statement was made to a meeting of Victorian railwaymen when he said that because of the strike rail and tram workers and eventually all workers would be 10s to 15s a week better off. in correcting statements made by 3nipn leaders. Mr Justice Drakeirockman said that with the excepon of the last few sitting days the time of the Court had been taken up entirely with the presentation of cases for the Australasian Council of Trade Unions and certain Governments. The public did not need to be reminded that cases involving a sum variously estimated at from £40.000,000 to £60.000.000 a year was not one lightly io be undertaken. Later the Commonwealth Government moved through its counsel for an investigation of the basic wage. Counsel said the Government was conscious of claims being made outside the -Court for an increase in the basic wage. • It was thought that the Australian Council of Trade Unions would have made an application, but he found this was not so. Rather than have the matter stood over, it was felt that those suffering injustice should have an opportunity of making an ap- £ lie at ion, so the ‘Commonwealth had istructed him accordingly. NJr Justice Drake-Brockman adjourned the matter until tp-morrow. when he will announce whether the Court wilj proceed with the hearing adjourned in 1940 of the basic wage case concurrently with the 40-hour week case.