WAGE CLAIM Decision Reserved; Three-Month Sitting

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28984, 27 August 1959, Page 14

WAGE CLAIM Decision Reserved; Three-Month Sitting

(Ntw Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, August 26.

The hearing of the claim for a new level of wages and overtime throughout New Zealand was completed in the Arbitration Court this afternoon. The hearing lasted three months to the day.

It was the longest hearing in the Court of Arbitration on an application for a new industrial award. The Court in New Zealand has been operating for more than 60 years.

When the case for the workers closed, after final submissions by Mr F. P. Walsh and Mr J. Turnbull, Mr Justice Tvndall reserved decision.

Usually the Court takes about three weeks to decide on wage order cases, but consideration of the massive amount of evidence presented in this case may take more than three weeks. Any new wage order, if granted before October 1, when the new P.A.Y.E. tables will come into force, could complicate matters for employers and employees. Because of this, and the length of the hearing, it is likely that any ruling on wages will, even if delivered earlier than, or later than. October 1. have some bearing on this key date. Before the luncheon adjournment todav. Mr Walsh, advocate for the Federation of Labour, backing the application made in the name of the Wellington, Taranaki. and Marlborough Clerical Workers’ Union, completed his final submissions. Tie was followed by Mr Turnbull, who made closing submissions on behalf of the Public Service Association. Mr Turnbull read 31 pages of typescript prepared in answer to argument by the employers. He dealt with every aspect of claims and counter-claims. After discussing statistics, national production in relation to workers’ incomes and the consumers’ price index. Mr Turnbull said:—“lt seems to me. therefore, that there is ample support in the evidence placed before the Court for my proposition that a general wage increase would not only do justice to wage and salary earners—it would vitalise the whole New Zealand economy.” Mr Walsh’s Submissions In his submissions today, Mr Walsh said that the employers’ attitude seemed to have been that productivity was not now usually increased by sheer physical effort by employees, but by improvement in capital equipment and methods. Also, many workers had received recognition of greater productivity by bonus and other payments. “These excuses are not impressive.” said Mr Walsh. “First, it has not been sug-

gested that the workers are increasing production by the use of brute strength and ignorance. Productivity depends, for increases, on the use of better equipment and methods, and the most essential requirement is that the workers should have the increased knowledge and skill to make the increase possible. “Second, while it is recognised that capital must receive its reward, that does not mean that it must take all the profits received from greater productivity.” Discussing bonus schemes and the like, Mr Walsh said the workers would prefer to have the security of higher minimum rates and smaller bonus payments, as bonus payments could be lost if business conditions deteriorated. “It is also desirable that the whole of the working community have some reward for the rise in national productivity, for otherwise the economy could become warped because of the natural desire of all workers to find employment m the favoured industries where wage ratei were highest,” said Mr Walsh.

Inconsistency Seen He submitted that, generally, the employers’ attitude was neither reasonable nor consistent. “They had totally opposed any general increase in minimum rates, thinking their obligations had been met by widespread payment of more than award rates, by bonus schemes, provision of overtime, and the fact that the Government returned part of its taxation in the form of the family benefit. “This attitude is unreasonable because, in fact, the only wage that a worker can actually rely on is the wage stipulated in his award or agreement with the employer,” said Mr Walsh. Evidence by employer witnesses showed inconsistency in that, while they opposed increased minimum rates, they paid wages very much in excess of the minima. Nor had the employers countered with any up-to-date information on his earlier submission that the economy of the country could not only sustain a general increase, but would be stimulated by it, said Mr Walsh. The economic set-up of overseas countries described by employers was entirely different from that of New Zealand's own essentially primary exporting economy. Levels of prices and wages were also different and had recently moved differently from New Zealand’s. Gov ernment’s Lead Mr Walsh said the Government and a number of private employers had already incorporated the existing wage order into the basic rates and did not appear unhappy with the result. ‘‘Criticism of the proposal for incorporation of the general order into basic rates has been concentrated on industries which illustrate ,the extreme possible effects of incorporation, and the examples given have not related to the actual application before the Court,” said Mr Walsh. Mr Walsh referred to the recent Australian basic wage judgment and the Budget that followed it. both of which, he said, were aimed at increasing spending power and ensuring expansion of industry and employment. Australia was affected by world conditions in much the same way as New Zealand, depending to a great extent on income from primary export.

Since 1956 the Australian basic wage had been increased by 30s a week and the Australian Budget had reduced taxation and increased social security payments, he said.

“It would appear,” he said, “that tve can reasonably expect our wool to show an average price of 46d per lb next year, very much better than the 361 d of last year.”

He submitted that the country’s economy was buoyant and could withstand the granting in full of the application.