EMPLOYERS’ REACTION

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27203, 21 November 1953, Page 8

EMPLOYERS’ REACTION

“AMAZED, ALARMED, DISCOURAGED ”

STATEMENT BY MR W. G. V. FERNIE

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 20.

“Employers throughout New Zealand will be amazed, alarmed, and discouraged by this decision of the Arbitration Court. Particularly is this so when it comes at a time when most commodity prices are showing a falling tendency,” said the president of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation (Mr W. G. V. Fernie).

The evidence presented to the Court by the Government Statistician showed that the effective wage rate had, over the last 12 months, fallen by 3j per cent., he added. A wage increase of this amount would therefore have restored the then purchasing power of wages. However, to many competent observers. it appeared likely that this 3£ per cent, would, within the next few months, be more than overtaken by commodity price drops. In these circumstances a decision by the Court not to grant any increase might well have been in the best interests of the country.

“Particularly over the last six months, manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers throughout thq country have been endeavouring by every means in their power to avoid price increases and, in many cases, by skitful planning and organisation, have brought about substantial price reductions,” he said. Price-Wage Balance “A balance between prices and wages brought about by a fall in prices would have been a real achievement in the history of this country, and it appeared almost within our grasp. "1716 decision of the Court must mean increases in almost all selling prices. The order as announced is expected to cost employers an extra £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 annually. “There is no possibility whatever of an increase of this magnitude being absorbed by manufacturers or distributors. In many cases the sums involved in the wage increases will be much greater than profits being earned.

Retrospective Payments “For many years employers have protested at the injustice of 'retrospective wage payments. The arguments against retrospective payments are so well known that they do not need to be restated here. However, on this occasion, the action of the Court in back-dating the order by 10 weeks is simply incomprehensible, particularly in view of the fact that so much of the delay was due to the procrastination of the workers’ advocate.” The decision as a whole is one which must give grave concern to all who have at heart the welfare of New Zealand. The Government, too, must accept a large share of responsibility for this decision, for, at the insistence of the Federation of Labour, amendments were at the last moment made to the regulations. “The Employers’ Federation opposed these amendments. The Court has taken as directives the permissivd clauses of the amendments." said Mr Fernie.