WAGE CLAIM Final Submissions By Employers’ Advocate

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28972, 13 August 1959, Page 16

WAGE CLAIM Final Submissions By Employers’ Advocate

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, August 12. Employers should not be called on to meet the payment of taxation incurred by wage or salary earners, Mr P. J. Luxford, the employers’ advocate, told the Court of Arbitration at the general wage order hearing today. Mr Luxford was completing his final submissions, which took the form of references to submissions and evidence presented earlier. Taxation increases, applied for a specific purpose—even if causing an increase in the consumer price index—should not be the cause of a wage increase, he said.

It had to be ensured that as far as possible the country would be able to provide jobs for the future. At the moment there was a higher rate of unemployment than at any other time since the war.

“We in industry must expand considerably in the next few years to absorb the increased numbers of juvenile workers coming on to the labour market,” he said. It was not wanted that wage costs should be set at such a level that the absorption of workers into industry would have to be reduced.

Mr A. R. Dellow, for the New Zealand Manufacturers' Federation, said the workers were already being paid for their share of any increase in production in many factories where bonus schemes operated. The negotiation of rates of remuneration under individual awards and agreements was fairer and better than granting a general wage order on top of existing arbitration and conciliation procedures. Mr J. C. Adams read a summary of evidence on behalf of Mr A. P. O’Shea, who has represented Federated Farmers. It asked that the Court “should not make a decision which will merely have the effect of transferring a disability from one section to other sections of the community who in many cases are also in an unfortunate position.” The Court adjourned till August 25, when Mr F. P. Walsh (Federation of Labour) will present his final submissions. Amendment Withdrawn

Earlier today an amendment filed yesterday to the application for a new general wage order was withdrawn by Mr Walsh. As a result of. a movement in the consumers’ price index from 1139 points to 1142 points in the June quarter, Mr Walsh sought an amendment from 13.7 per cent.

to 14 per cent, in the application for an order. Mr Luxford referred to the amendment before beginning his final sufcnissions. He said that an important issue had been raised, for Mr Walsh had closed his case. The information upon which the amendment was based had been available for about a week. “Could Involve £2m” Mr Luxford said he had no objection to the Court being informed of the movement. Indeed, it had already been mentioned during the proceedings. But it was an entirely different mattewhen it became an amendm* l * the Substance of which coqW involve'an extra £lm at least and probably nearer £2d« a year. Mr Justice Tyndall said the Court had always taken cognisance of any movements in the consumer? price index during and even after the completion of a general order case before it arrived at a decision. Mr Walsh said that in view of his Honour’s assurance he would withdraw the amendment. His Honour said he felt that was the proper course.