BREWERS’ PROFITS

Evening Star, Issue 17731, 4 August 1921, Page 8

BREWERS’ PROFITS

WAGES INCREASE, 73.0 PER CENT,

BEER RAISED 48.7 PER CENT

[Special to iue 1 Stak.'J

CilKifeTCH URCJ l, August A. in the Arbitration Court to-day the Brewers' and Ala listers’ Union applied for a bonus of Ss per week. Mr J{, D. Martin, who appeared m support of tho application, ‘ s . 1( j brewery industry was nourishing, and could well, afford to pay tho bonus. The court's view Unit an industry should not lu l endangered by too_ groat an econo in ie burden was not ju conflict with tho conditions in tho brewery industry. When the temporary bonus was granted in November last the employers, in order to meet tho cost, increased liie price of beer by 9s per hogshead. Flo understood that the weekly output was somewhere in tho vicinity of i,UOO hogsheads. Ihe extra wages expense on account of the bonus was £B3 a wed;, or £2,210 in six months, and tho increased charge on the output yioded £431) per week, or £11,700 in six months. Thus, according to his deductions, the increased charge yielded an extra profit of £9,-190 iri six mouths above the cost of tho bonus. Mr F. Cooper, for the employers, asked the court to decide if the financial ability of brewers to pay the bonus was relevant, if the court granted tho application it would put tho trade out of line, with the wages allowed for similar work in other industries. Air Justice Frazer said the court had no intention to make differential awards based on tho state of industries that did not come under the head of ■' special circumstances,” such as tho court contemplated in its statement referred to. Later on His Honor said it had been stated that brewers had put a charge on their output which amounted to considerably more than the cost of the 9s bonus, and it was sought, to bring evidence to prove that this had not been contradicted, hut the tact remained that this point was not relevant at this stage. The court did not as a general rule weigh profits against wages, for the. simple reason that the court had always held that if an’ industry could not a (lord to pay , a living wage it should not carry # on at the ex-pen so of its workers. Th s case was not a matter of a new award, and the question of profits ol the industry did not come within the purview of the court. If there had been any profiteering it was not a matter lor the court’s" attention, but for the Hoard of Trade. ’Hie present case, was purely a question of the cost of living, and as for the classification of skilled, and semi-skilled labor, that most siand until a new award was made. The evidence sought to be brought forward by Air .Martin would not lead, to anvtiiing, and could not ho admitted. The union should apply for tho current As bonus. Air Martin then formally app’u'd Katins, and it was granted by the court. Air O'-per said the other side ha-l made reference to brewers’ profits. It was only due to the ‘‘Trade ” that the court should allow him to make a statement which would counteract the remarks made by Air Martin. His Honor: Is it necessary we should go into that now? Tho case is practically settled, hut you can say that the figures presented by Mr Martin do not represent a, true statement, of fnef-s. Air Cooper: That is a. fact. Air Alartin’s figures do not disclose the true position. The brewery industry is not earning undue profits; in fact, at the. present time it is not making normal profits. Air C. IT. Hewlett said that since 1014 the price of beer bad boon raised 48.7 per rent., while his wages had gone up 73.9 per cent.