WAGE ORDER

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26120, 24 May 1950, Page 8

WAGE ORDER

Arbitration Court Hearing ISSUES TO BE ARGUED (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 23. “The Court has insufficient information before it to enable it to decide whether it should or should not make an interim general order,” said Mr Justice Tyndall in the Arbitration Court this morning. “The Court has reached the conclusion that it must inform itself with the aid of evidence before it decides whether or not it should make an interim general order of its own motion.” His Honour said that as the matter was recognised as being of seme urgency he invited representatives appointed by parties bound by awards and industrial agreements to attend the Arbitration Court to-morrow morning. He added that the Court would call evidence from several Government officials who were intimately concerned wtih the matters on which the Court desired to be informed. Upon request the Court would allow the cross-examination of witnesses by a limited number of the representatives who were present. On Thursday morning the Court would be prepared tc hear submissions from a limited number of the representatives on the following issues:— (a) Whether an interim general order should be made. (b) If it is decided that such an order should be made, the extent and nature of the order. “If the time suggested is considered inadequate by the representatives, the Court will be pleased to consider a longer adjournment before submissions are made, but it is pointed out that the proposed procedure is intentionally not in the nature of an exhaustive or final investigation,” said his Honour. It was decided after a discussion that the Court should hear witnesses from Government departments, including the Government Statistician. tomorrow. On Thursday those witnesses will be cross-examined by interested parties, and then a date will be fixed for the hearing of submissions from interested parties. “At present there is before the Court an application, dated April 14, requesting the Court to make a general order under clause 5 of the Economic Stabilisation Regulations, 1950,” said Mr Justice Tyndall in his statement. “Since the application was filed important changes in the price structure have taken place. The ultimate effect of these changes is difficult to assess with any degree of exactitude. “As a result of certain representations made to the Government an amendment to the Economic Stabilisation Regulations was gazetted last Friday. By this amendment the Court is empowered of its own motion to make what may be referred to for convenience as an interim general order without prejudicing the application which has already been filed and which is awaiting hearing. “The Court has insufficient information before it to enable it to decide whether it should or should not make an interim general order. Prices and Wages “It is pointed out that the Court, in making any general order, interim or otherwise, is required by the regulations to .take into account, inter alia, any rise or fall in retail prices as indictated by any index published by the Government Statistician. The most up-to-date price index prepared and published by the Government Statistician is the consumer’s price index, which was initiated in the first quarter of 1949. “The latest monthly Abstract of Statistics, issued on April 28 last and received by the Court on May 12, shows that the consumer’s price index has risen since March 31, 1949. from 1000 to 1018 at December 31, 1949. an increase of 1.8 per cent. In the same period the index number for the weekly wage rates of adult male workers in all industrial groups combined has risen from 1617 to 1724, an increase of 6.6 per cent. “On April 12, 1949, the Court said in its standard wage pronouncement that the rise in retail prices indicated by the index numbers published by the Government Statistician did not at that time justify any variation in the Court’s standard wage rates.” continued Mr Justice Tyndall. “It can be suggested, therefore, that in the present minimum wage rates there is a margin of 4.8 per cent, to care for any increase in the consumer's price index which may occur after December 31. 1949. “According to reports in the press it appears that the removal of subsidies and other adjustments are expected by the Government to result in an increase in the ‘cost-of-living index figure’ by about 4 per cent. If this estimate is intended to be applicable to the consumer's price index and is reasonably accurate, then it would seem that’ since March 31, 1949. wages have already been adequately increased to cover the anticipated variations in the consumer’s price index. “In these circumstances, therefore the Court has reached the conclusion that it must inform itself with the aid of evidence before it decides whether or not it should make an interim general order of its own motion.”

His Honour then announced the proposed procedure for the hearing of evidence. Workers’ Attitude Mr F. P. Walsh, representing the New Zealand Federation of Labour said that it would be impossible for the workers’ representatives to be in a position to have their case heard on the dav suggested by Mr Justice Tyndall. He asked that the hearing of Government officials’ evidence should be delayed for a week, and that the hearing of submissions should be adjourned until June 7 “I think the Judge and the Court will appreciate the importance of this case, as it affects the working people and those on pensions and fixed salaries,” said Mr Walsh. "We have definite views on the effects of the lifting of subsidies. In view of the fact that you are calling Government officials it will take time for us to prepare our submissions.” Mr Justice Tyndall: I thought this matter was urgent. The Court is stretching to the utmost to meet the alleged urgency, but apparently it is not urgent. Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative on the Court): There have been protest meetings all over th® country. Mr Walsh: It is urgent in that it affects the standard of living of all working people, but it is of ance for the workers’ representatives to have time to prepare their submissions. Mr Walsh added that the Court had power to make any increase retrospective to May 8. and that would protect the workers. Mr C. G. Camp, secretary of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, said he was amazed that Mr Walsh should ask for so long an adjournment. All employers regarded the matter.as urgent. “Thirty or 40 or 50 days’ wait will not make any difference to the evidence available to place before the Court,” he said. “I think there is no real evidence which can be put before the Court.” Mr F. C. Allerby (workers’ representative on the Court): I think house- I wives would disagree. Mr Camp opposed more than seven i days’ adjournment. The Court then conferred on the 1 suggestions of Mr Walsh and Mr Camp, after which his Honour said that if the Court made any interim general order it would be of its own motion. The Court, said his Honour, felt it was in the interests of everyone concerned that there should be no delay in lhe calling of evidence. The postponement of the hearing of . submissions was in a different cate- I gcry. added his Honour. The Court ' had shown that it was clearly de- ' sirous of having no delay, ft was i doing its very utmost to enable a I

prompt decision, one way or the other, to be reached. The longer the delay, the greater would be the embarrassment to industry and the greater the immediate hardship to workers. “There are very important facts as far as we are concerned,' said Mr Camp. “After witnesses have been heard to-morrow, we then make written submissions, but do we call evidence?” Mr Justice Tyndall said that the Court’s suggestion was that no evidence should be called by the representatives. “If we call that evidence, we will be embarking on a general order hearing,' he added. “I take it that the interim motion is to avoid delay. The Court has made commitments ahead, and we cannot be expected to make this a general hearing.” Scope of Inquiry Mr Walsh asked what scope the Court proposed to cover in its considerations. His Honour said that the Court would try to lead evidence to ascertain whether anyone in New Zealand could tell it what the effect of recent actions had been on the cost-of-living index. , x “The Court in this case has to be a champion guesser. but at least we want it to be an intelligent guess,” said his Honour. Mr Walsh: We want to remove you from that difficulty of being a champion guesser. Mr Camp: Why? Are you a better one? His Honour: That is why we will not proceed without the calling of evidence, though the Court has power to make an interim order without calling any evidence whatsoever. Because it is such an important matter the Court has decided to call evidence from parties which can hardly be described as parties. Mr Walsh: It is questionable whether they can be considered impartial. “How I am going to find anybody, even Mr Walsh, who is impartial, I don’t know.” said his Honour. Mr W’alsh asked for lhe latest date possible for the presentation of submissions. and suggested that some unions might give up their fixture dates so that this could be attained. Mr Camp then asked that the fixing of a date for the hearing of submissions be deferred until after the hearing of evidence and cross-examination. His Honour: The Court is prepared to hear suggestions from anyone that no interim order be made. Mr Camp: From the employers’ point of view you can’t make it soon enough. You could make it right away. His Honour: You can’t say there will be one yet. Mr Camp: I had that in view, your Honour. The matter could be resolved if Mr W’alsh says he does not want an interim order. He has not asked for one yet. Mr Walsh said that the Federation of Labour had already waited on the Government to ask for amendments to the stabilisation regulations so that the Court could be empowered to make an interim order. He added that he would accept responsibility for any delay in the hearing. Representation of Parties His Honour, after announcing the Court's decision to hear witnesses called by the Court to-morrow and to have their cross-examination on Thursday, said that Mr Prime wished to reiterate his view that the parties should be able to make their submissions to the Court not later than Tuesday next. His Honour then drew attention to the wording of the regulations regarding representation at the hearing. The Federation of Labour, the Employers’ Federation, and any other such bodies not being "parties bound by awards and industrial agreements” could not appea'r on their own behalf. There was nothing, however, to prevent unions and associations of employers or workers appointing these bodies as their representatives. Regarding the right of cross-examin-ation of witnesses, the Court must determine who was proper to cross-ex-amine. There were between 600 and 1000 unions. If the Court was faced with representatives of them all, for instance. it would be a different proposition from there being three or four representatives. Earlier Mr Justice Tyndall said: “I have no desire to curb or reduce the cross-examination of witnesses.”