LABOURERS' WAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 55, 6 March 1937, Page 10

LABOURERS' WAGES

EFFECT OF BASIC

WAGE

THE AUSTRALIAN PRINCIPLE

The builders' and general-labourers' dispute which was heard by the Court of Arbitration at Dunedin on Wednesday is the first builders' labourers' case to be heard by the Court since the pronouncement of the basic wage. The decision of the Court in this dispute will have an important bearing on future decisions of the Court, and in future adjustments of wages rates, especially for casual workers. '. •

( Mr. P. M. Butler, secretary of the General Labourers' Federation, together with the secretary of the Dunedin Union (Mr. R. Harrison), appeared for the Dunedin Union, and Mr. F. C. Cookson, secretary of the Otago Employers' Association, appeared on behalf of the employers. Mr. J. Robertson, secretary of the Dunedin Trades and Labour Council, made a general statement respecting the effect of the basic wages pronouncement on wages in general.;

In hi?-statement to the Court, Mr. Butler pointed out that the building industry was the third largest in New Zealand, in so far as the value of the annual production was concerned, but that in potential and lasting value, buildings being one of the true forms of wealth the building ■ industry was one of the most important; without the building industry, the nation could not progress, nor the community prosper.

The building industry was so consituted that it gave little consideration to its employees. Especially did this apply to builders' labourers, who performed nine-tenths of the required operations, said Mr. Butler. These men had no tenure of employment and had no sense of economic security; they lost time through weather conditions, Waiting for materials, and time between contracts. They were not paid for statutory holidays,, and lost wages because of the close-down at Christmas and at Easter.

The timber, "cement, lime, hardware, bricks, tiles, joinery, wire, and, paint were auxiliary industries to building operations. The majority of these industries were subject .to overseas competition, and some were protected by tariffs; yet in these industries the employees had a sense of tenure, and were paid for holidays, and lost very little time. The building industry, which fabricated the products of the previously-mentioned industries, was not subject to overseas competition, yet it was unable (or at least made no effort) to give to its employees a decent standard of living. Thirty-seven per cent, of the total working days; was lost to builders' labourers, and the average wage of a builders': and general labourer throughout the year was £3 weekly. • THE BASIC WAGE. The- basic wage was '.introduced to provide that no worker working under an award or industrial" agreement should receive "less than £3 16s per week. The Court itself had made this quite clear in its General Order pronouncing the basic wage. The Court did not qualify its Order by-specifying that the basic wage should only be applied to "weekly" workers; said Mr. Butler. ■-The- Act'did-' not- specify "weekly" workers, and-he submitted that casual workers should alsoreceive the benefits of the * legislation. The practice in Australia was to allow for 15 per cent, to 20 per cent. '• additional ;on the declared basic" wage to casual workers. ' Mr. Butler quoted decisions by Mr. Justice Higgins, Mr. Justice Powers, and Mr. Justice Heydon, and others of the Commonwealth of Australia, establishing the principle that casual workers were entitled to an .additional percentage for time lost through weather conditions, "following the job," and lost due to statutory holidays. ■ ■■• ' ' '. . The wages at present being paid in Dunedin were Is 6dper hour. Evidence was called from men who had kept records of their earnings showing that the average earnings were from £3 to £3 8s per week. The men who averaged £3 8s per week were leading hands. Notwithstanding the low wages paid, the cost of building was higher in Dunedin than elsewhere in New Zealand. A six-roomed house cost £853 to build in Auckland in 1934-35; £943 in Wellington; £868 in Christchurch; and £1087 in Dunedin. ■ ■ EMPLOYERS' CASE. For the employers, Mr. Cookson said that the principal difficulty facing the parties was the satisfactory adjustment of hours and wages, and the anomaly to which he had drawn the Court's attention in the course of submissions in connection with the quarry labourers' dispute was particularly apparent in the builders' and general labourers' case. This was the difference between the rate paid to builders' labourers and general contractors' labourers. The employers were entirely opposed to the claim for payment for special- holidays and annual leave on pay. It was considered to be wrong in principle for worker's engaged in productive occupations, who received at least time and a half rates for.: any work done in excess of the ordinary hours, .to be paid for time in which no work was done. Mr. Cookson mentioned that he had checked the averages given in evidence by some of the witnesses on behalf of the union, and he found that the man who was receiving Is lid per hour had averaged £3 11s 6d, not £3 8s as stated. Apparently the witness had not included the deduction made for wages tax.

Mr. W. Blee, recalled on behalf of the union, stated that he had not taken the wages tax into account. He had no intention of misleading the Court, as he had stated his net earnings. Neither he nor his mates would object to paying 2s 6d wage tax if they were granted a decent standard of living. The Court reserved its decision.