ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 150, 21 March 1939, Page 10

ARBITRATION COURT

Question Of Standard Rate Pronouncement ARGUMENT HEARD Oue of the principal issues connected with industrial disputes in the Dominion —whether the Court of Arbitration proposes to make any alteration in its 1937 pronouncement ot wages for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers—is expected to be settled by the hearing of the builders and general labourers, carpenters and joiners and plumbers’ dispute, which was begun before Mr. Justice O’Regan in Wellington yesterday. Though confusion existed immediately subsequent to the pronouncement, as it was not clear whether the rates were for full-time or casual workers, the rates have since been accepted as the minimum in the majority of awards for hourly workers. Several awards embracing the rates, however, have now expired, and in the applications for new awards wages increases have been sought by the workers on the grounds that living costs have risen. Such applications have been opposed by the employers on the grounds that the factors which qaused the Court to increase wages in 1937 —a favourable trade balance and high prices for wool have since been reversed, production and wool values being down, in addition to which internal costs have risen. The decision of the Court of Arbitration will, therefore, be awaited with widespread interest, and the submissions in the disputes now before it will have a vital bearing. The case for the builders and general labourers began yesterday and is expected to be completed today. The other two disputes will spread over the rest of Hie week. Interesting Point.

An interesting point was presented to the Court yesterday by Mr. P. M. Butler, secretary of the General Labourers’ Union, who appeared as advocate for the workers. Mr. Butler claimed that the Court had set its 1937 rates as a guide and not as a hard and fast rule, and had not applied them to any particular class of workers. They had been followed in many instances and also departed from in others. He said that labourers had not unconditionally accepted the unskilled rate (2/4 an hour) of the 1937 pronouncement as being particularly applicable to their class of work, but had done so in order not to delay the award at that time and without prejudice to further proceedings. He claimed that labourers were now entitled to wage increases as a matter of justification, and that in the granting of any such: increases, the standard rate would stand as a guide, and that it should not constitute the basic wage for such workers. Further submissions are expected to be made by the parties in th<? separate disputes. It is considered that the Court’s decision will facilitate settlements of other disputes m Conciliation Councils.