HARDSHIP TO EMPLOYER

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 116, 19 May 1938, Page 8

HARDSHIP TO EMPLOYER

There are now two Courts of Arbitration in New Zealand, both dealing with the same type of work, but there is still delay in the making of awards. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Armstrong) sees the need for remedying the position, and in an interview yesterday he stated that he was thinking seriously of recommending the Government to appoint at least one industrial Magistrate to relieve the Arbitration Courts of some of their minor responsibilities. The need for acceleration in the work of making awards is becoming increasingly evident. Recently the Minister discussed the matter with the Federation of Labour and one of the reasons he advanced for the delays that have taken pjace was the fact that in the majority of cases awards were made for a one-year term. This is a feature of award procedure that has become popular in recent years, and there can be no doubt that, to a very large extent, it has been responsible for adding to the work of the Arbitration Courts. Almost without exception, unions have asked for a one-year term, and the Courts have seen fit to grant the request. Some years ago awards extending over a term of three years were the rule rather than the exception, and the result was a greater stability in industry than is possible today. In a number of cases, too, awards- have made provision for retrospective pay. This has been in many cases the consequence of the inability *to obtain new awards till some months after the term of the old award has ended. And this again has been due to pressure of work on the Courts through the demand,for a new award for every industry ever;

What does this mean to the em)loyer? The requirements of his >usiness demand that he should make lis estimates and fix his' prices some nonths ahead. It is bad enough to cnOw that in a year he may be faced with the necessity of meeting an in : creased ,wage bill and conforming :0 a new set of conditions, but when an top of he is called upon tc make retrospective" payments o: wages, sometimes extending ove several months, his position become! in impossible one. He has already sold his goods or undertaken hii contracts at, a price based on cost! regulated by an existing award. / iew award is then issued providing for retrospective payment. He can lot recoup the loss which he has in jvitably suffered on tlie sale of th< *oods or the performance of the con ;ract. He cannot amend his price retrospectively and the result is tha be finds that for a certain period h( has been seMing his goods at a loss or without profit. It might b< claimed thai a contractor or manu facturer should make some allowanci in his estimates for a possible in crease in costs, but where there i; keen competition this cannot b< done, and it is not in the interests of good business that a big additioi should have to be made for "con tingencies." If awards were mad< promptly, the question of retrospec tive payments would not arise. One way of overcoming the congestion o; work in the Arbitration Courts woulc be for trades unions to accept award: extending over a longer term thai one year. This would enable i belter balance to be preserved be tween the rights of the employer ant the rights of the worker,