VARIATIONS IN COST OF LIVING

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 33, 8 August 1921, Page 6

VARIATIONS IN COST OF LIVING

ONLY GROUND FOR AMENDING

AWARDS

STATEMENT BY Ml-i. JUSTICE

FRAZER,

(IT ■TELEGRAPH.—I'hfcSS ASSOCIATION.)

. CHBISTCHURCH, 6th August. "Variation in the, cost of living is the only ground on which the Arbitration Court has, jurisdiction to amend awards while they are in force, except by mutual consent of the parties to the award." Such was the text of a judgment given by Mr. Justice Frazer in the Arbitration Court to-day. The Canterbury paper bag, carton, and box makers, asked that their Award should be amended co as to equalise the wages of females, with the wages paid to females in Wellington. They also asked that tho award should be continued on an equitable basis until the expiry of printing trade awards' on 2nd April, 1922. . .'■ .

"It is quite true," said his Honour, "that In the past the Court has on occasions altered the basic rate where the application has been properly before the Court, under the War legislation, and is founded on increases in the cost of living since the date oi the award. We have no jurisdiction unless that foundatidn is laid. Similarly, of courae v if applications were made in the reverse direction —asking for reduction-^there Would have to be laid' the foundation of a reduction in the cost of living. Where the foundation Of the cost of living has been laid, the Co.urfc has gone oh occasions a little further, and adjusted basic fates. In some cases, where ah' award is below the recognised standard,' the Court has taken the opportunity afforded by an application properly before it of raising those rates.

"However, , the law is perfectly clear on the' pointy It rests on a decision of Mr. Justice Cooper some years ago. tt-hoB never been questioned. This Court has no power, except in accordance with the War Legislation Act and one or tw» clauses in the principal Act, to ajter an award during its currency. The application before the Court is not properly- based on any consideration set out in the Wai 1 Legislation Act, and we have come, to the conclusion that there is no jurisdiction. It is not a question of the merits of tile case, "but merely oJ the jurisdiction of tho Court. As we .have no jurisdiction, we have no right to deal with the matter.

"It is unfortunate that some awards fun out before others, and that certain members of the trade in one district' are on a better Sooting than others in different districts, but that cannot be helped. To cut the matter short. We are quite convinced that there, is no power 1, as the law stands at .present, to enable us to deal with your application."