NO INCREASE

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 7, 3 October 1929, Page 15

NO INCREASE

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ WAGES ARBITRATION COURT AWARD MR. MONTEITH DISSENTS There has been no alteration in tlie rate of wages in the New Zealand Waterside Workers Award, which was filed in the Arbitration Court yesterday. A majority of the Court—His Honour Mr. Justice Blair, and Mr. L. J. Schmitt (employers representative) found that there had been no change in conditions which would warrant any increase being made. A dissenting opinion was given by the third member of the Court—Mr. A. d. Monteith—who stated: — “As the increase they are entitled., to has been refused, I will not accept any responsibility for any untoward happening in this industry as a result of (in my opinion) the inadequate wage allowed.” The main dispute concerned the general cargo rate which is the basic rate for this industry. A majority of the Court finds that there has been no change tn conditions warranting any increase, in this award the previous rate has been adopted, but there have been some minor adjustments in the nature of increases in order to correct some inconsistencies in the old award. Mr. Justice Blair’s memorandum to the award states:-: — Reasons For Decision. The matters weighing with the _ majority of the Court in coming to this decision are as follow: — This Court in its General Pronouncement of September 15, 1925, raised the basic wage of unskilled workers from Is. 9d. to Is. lOd. per hour. It is not disputed that general waterside work is within this category, and unless, there be some alteration in the cost-of-living figures or some special reason, it would be an industry to which the Court’s General Pronouncement would apply. It is not suggested that the cost-of-living figures at the present time as compared with the figures in 1925 are higher. Indeed, the index number for the latest period is 1602 (July), which shows a slight decrease as compared with 1925, when the figure was 1622. The union claimed that the general cargo rate should be increased from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 6d. per hour. The basis of this claim for increase was that the casualness of employment in the industry was greater than was assumed to be the case when the Court fixed the rates in the expired 1924 award. Compensation' For Casualness. In the 1922 award the Court arrived at its basic wage rate by adding 25 per cent, to the then general labourers’ (casual) rate in order to compensate for the extra casual nature of the watersider’s work. In the argument preceding the making of the 1924 award, returns were put in by both sides to prove the extent of casualness. Returns were put in by employers showing the time worked by men who were allotted work in 39 weeks or more in a year. A further return of men who were allotted work in 34 weeks or over was also produced, this latter return being that suggested by the union itself at the 1922 dispute. The object of adopting these periods was to exclude from consideration the purely casual men who look for waterside work temporarily or only in the busy season. At the Court’s suggestion, for the purpose of obtaining a fairer average, a further 10 per cent of the highest and the lowest paid workers was also excluded. The returns showed that the average hours worked was 27.52. hours ordinary time and 8.12 hours overtime —a total of 35.64 hours per week.

The basic rate then in operation (2s. 2d. per hour) gave an average weekly wage of £3 17s. 2d., brought up to £4 9s. Bd. by the addition of overtime and special cargo rates. At that time the general labourer’s fate was Is. 9dl per hour, and on a full 44-hours’ week basis he earned £3 17s.

Since the making of the 1924 award, which fixed 2s. 2jd. per hour, an agreement was made by the parties for an increase of Ijd. per hour in the general cargo rate, thus making the rate 2s. 4d. per hour, which is the present rate. This agreement was actually dated February 17, 1926, but was made retrospective to November 1, 1925. This Court on September 15, 1925, had made a pronouncement increasing the general casual labourer’s basic rate from Is. 9d. to Is. lOd. per hour. A proportionate increase on a wage of 2s. 2Jd. would approximate lid. so that the employers, by conceding lid. more than fully passed on to the waterside workers the benefit , of the Court’s pronouncement. This increase made the general cargo rate 2s. 4d. per hour. At the hearing of the present dispute, returns were again submitted by the employers on the identical basis previously submitted, with this exception, however, that whereas the previous returns were limited to main ports the present returns included also the main small ports. These new returns showed that of the total men employed, 69 per cent, had been allotted work on 39 weeks or over; and that 76 per cent, had been allotted work on 34 weeks or over. It must be conceded that these returns should afford a fair indication of the average work obtained by the waterside worker, who consistently follows this work for a livelihood. This return disclosed that for the four main ports the average hours worked for the period 1925-1928 inclusive, was 26.98 hours ordinary time and 7.62 hours overtime, an average of 34.6 hours per week, showing average weekly earnings of £4 13s. 7d. during the number of weeks worked, viz., 48.72 (yearly average earnings £228 Is. Id.). , _ inni u The return produced at the 1924 hearing showed an average of 35.64 hours, and average earnings of £4 9s. Bd. It will thus be seen that the return 1925-19-8 for the four main ports showed an average of one hour less work, but increased earnings of 3s. lid. per week as compared with the figures before the Court in IJI4. The above figures refer to men who were allotted employment on 39 weeks or over. The corresponding figures for the 34-week men are 34,3 hours per week with average earnings of £4 12s. 8d f °r 47.57 weeks (a yearly average of £221 Bs.). At the 1924 hearing the 34-week men averaged approximately £4 Bs. Bd. a week, The average over all ports was not avallatue In 1024. a»d thus no comparison can be made. The figures show that the averages for all ports scheduled for the years 19-.>-08 Inclusive wore as follow: —For the 34week men: 25.59 hours ordinary time and 7.07 hours overtime, a total of 33.50 hours per week, and average weekly earnings during 47.47 weeks of £4 12s. 4d. (£-10 2s. lid. per year). For the 39-weok men: 2580 hours ordinary time and 8.07 hours overtime, a total of 33.93 hours per week and average weekly earnings during 48.10 weeks of £4 13s. 7d. (£220 14s. per year). ■ The average weekly hours for 39-week men at main ports only at the time of tne hearing of the last dispute was 35.64 hours. Mr. Monteith holds the view that the Court in Its memorandum to the 1924 award adopted what is called Mr. Justice Higgins’s basis of calculating time, ror the purpose of wage-fixing he had treated overtime worked as if it were ordinary time. This basis was referred to by tne Court only for the purpose of comparison A perusal of the whole memorandum makes It clear that Mr. Justice Higgins’s basis was not adopted. The bnsle rate for unskilled workers was fixed bv this Court In Its 1925 pronouncement at Is. Wd. an hour. Tills rate was fixed mainly by reason of (lie increase in the retail price index, and also on account of the necessity of levelling up ano standardising rates for unskilled, semiskilled nnd skilled workers As already pointed out the rate of Is. KM an hour is the minimum wage fixed for casual unskilled workers on hourly rates, and this class of workers loses a certain amount of time by bad weather, holidays and In tervals between fobs. This Court has adopted the principle of granting to the waterside worker on account of special rnsunlness of cnmloyment an additional 25 per cent, above the ordl-

nary casual labourer's rate. Actually, the waterside worker at 2s. -Id. an hour gets 27.3 per cent, greater wages than the casual labourer at Is. lOd. an hour. This extra 2.3 per cent. Is accounted for inainiy by the passing on of IJd. instead of lid. in November, 1925. Comparison With Other Trades. The official effective wage index numbers for all Industrial groups show that the group "shipping and cargo workers” has received the third highest increase in New Zealand, being exceeded only by the “food, drink, and tobacco” group, and the “wood manufacture” group. Taking 1000 as the base figure for 1914 Cor this group the effective wage for the March quarter of 1929 was 10117.4, which Is 07.5 points above the average for all groups. It represents an actual money increase of 71 per cent, above the 1911 wages, as against an average money increase for a.ll groups of 00.1 per eent., and a cost of living increase of 60.2 per cent. (July. 1929. figure). After the discussion upon the question of wages, Mr Monteith dissociated himself from participation in the settlement of the remaining ques'ions left for discussion. A majority of the Court has settled these questions, the chief being the rate for handling frozen produce, trimming coal in bunkers, appointment of leading hands, and engagement for different classes of work.

The term of the award is two years, com meneing from October 25.