THE ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 11, 7 October 1927, Page 10

THE ARBITRATION COURT

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER REPLIES TO CRITICS POLICY EXPLAINED WHAT THE 1925 BASIS MEANS Irt x statement made from the Arbitration Court bench at Auckland yesterday His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer answered some of the criticism to which the Court had. been subjected recently. His Honour made it perfectly clear that the Court had not embarked on a general policy of wage increases, and stated that much of the criticism levelled at the Court was based on ignorance of the true position. Dominion Special Service. Auckland, October 6. Expressing a hope that his remarks would destroy the idea that the Arbitration Court had pursued a mad pol icy of raising wages regardless of the consequences, Mr. Justice Frazer, speaking in the Court to-day, dealt trenchantly with some recent criticism of arbitration procedure at the ’conclusion of the hearing of an application for an increase of a penny an hour in the wages of local bodies’ labourers in the Auckland provincial district. The Judge said he agreed with what Mr. S. E. Wright and Mr. R. Worleh had said about difficulties imposed, on highlv-rated boroughs and counties by the necessity to pay employees more liberally. The same views, Mr. Frazer added, ’ had been expressed by many people in New Zealand, but they badbeen used as material for a general attack on the work and principles of the Arbitration Court, which of late had been subjected to much criticism. Clearing Away Misapprehensions. “Naturally,” said His Honour, “the Court has not troubled its head officially about newspaper criticisms, which for the most part are based on utter ignorance of the position,” but he said the case then before the Court afforded him a legitimate opportunity to clear awav some of the widespread misapprehension about the Court’s principles affecting cases. One would think, he said, to read newspaper references to the work of the Court that there had been progressive increases of wages irrespective of the conditions of the country and of trade—that, in fact, there had been increases “all along the line,” based on the cost of living without regard to the economic conditions. As a matter of fact, since 1922 the system of basing wages at six-monthly periods on the cost of living had been inoperative. The position now was that any increases could not be given effect before the expiration of the award or awards to which they referred, and as the currency of awards was not infrequently as long as three years, it was often a considerable period before a rise of wages actually became operative. In .September, 1925, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, the Court had slightly increased the basic wage, adding a penny an hour to the wage of general labourers, with corresponding increases irpthe payment of other tradesmen excepting such as had prior to that received more liberal treatment. The 1925 Basis. Since then, as individual awards expired, they were renewed on a slightly higher basis determined in 1925, and these alone constituted the increases effected in the past two years. Really they were the deferred fulfilment of the 1925 pronouncement. The 1925 basis he emphasised, was designed in full light of the knowledge that the country would have to face a period of depression. It was the basis of payment which it was calculated the employers could meet in times of adversity and exceed in prosperous periods. By no means was ft the maximum that could be paid in times of industrial robustness, but a reasonable means designed to obviate the necessitv for frequent alterations in the wage scale, which were so troublesome to employers making forward contracts. These remarks, the Judge hoped, would serve as an effective answer to critics of the Court who knew less than nothing about it.