MINERS’ WAGES

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 134, 22 February 1923, Page 3

MINERS’ WAGES

THE WORKERS’ POINT OF VIEW STATEMENT FROM MINERS’ FEDERATION Seen bv a Dominion reporter yesterday, Mr. P. O’Rourke, secretary of the New Zealand Miners’ Federation, had something definite to say regarding tho recent pronouncement by Air. Justice Frazer, President of tho Arbitration Court, on the subject of tho award affecting ■ the wages of miners an Waihi. “Tho latest pranks of the Arbitray tion Court in relation to the, AV aihi miners pass all understanding,” said Mr. O’Rourke, “and will do more to undermine the confidence of the workers of New Zealand in the Court than tho propaganda directly aimed against it. For this reason the Miners’ Federation is thankful, as, in the opinion of its members, tho time long ago arrived when the workers generally should have learnt to depend on their own strength and intelligence to settle* industrial disputes.” That the Court was ignorant of the fundamentals of the only question submitted to it, viz., wages, continued Mr. O’Rourke, is now beyond doubt, and is borne out by tho paltry excuse contained in its so-called explanation, which appeared in the daily Press yesterday, and in which apologies are practically made for Messrs. Scott and Hammond, the latter of whom was tho gold mine owners’ advocate when the case was before the Court.. The Court in its apologia the seoretary of the Miners’ Federation proceeded, admits that “the rates of wages wore fixed under a misappror hension as to the practice agreed upon by tho parties.” ’Die Court’s admission reveals a very haphazard method of arriving nt its decisions. Surely, seeing that it was dealing with the lives of hundreds of men and their wives and (families, it should have taken the trouble to inquire for a clear explanation of ilia practice prevailing, such ae was often dona when Mr. Justice Stringer was President of tho Court. It might also be asked as to what Mr. M. J. Reardon was doing to allow the interests of the men ha is supposed to represent to be sacrificed by these slipshod methods. Having made a wrongful judgment, which' resulted in industrial trouble and a threatened lock-out, which, in turn, threw' the injustice of the men’s treatment into the bright light of publicity, the Court has now somersaulted, and added 2d, a day to .the original rates awarded, and by this wo are to presume the men’s grievances have been remedied 1 The 2d. only brings tho wages of these minors up to tho Court’s £3 16s. Id. minimum, a poor enough wage in all conscience, but tho faultiness of this decision is m the fact that it is less by ssl lid. a week than the rate the Court said it was its intention to award in the original judgment. To quote: “The Court assumed that the former agreement bore its correct legal interpretation, and that six days’ wages were paid. .Now six days at 13s. Bd., the minimum awarded in £he first place, works out nt £4 2s. a week. The Court definitely indicates that it meant to award this sum for a week’s work, and as may bo remembered Mr. Bishop,, of the Minoownors’ .Federation certainly had this impression, and published it in the daily Press. When, however, the refusal of the 'Waihi companies to pay for a six days’ week forced the Court to review tho decision, the Court comes out with an amendment to tho award which still fails of its original intention. For instead of reducing the men 6d. a day, it cuts them down by ss. lid. a week, or nearly twice, as much. “What have workers to think,” concluded Mr. O’Rourke, “of a Court which delivers a judgment without aseertalning the facts, and then fails to repair to tho extent of its own wish’es, the grievances it admits?”