EMPLOYERS PROPOSE ORDER ON BASIS OF UNSKILLED WORKERS’ RATES

Evening Star, Issue 26154, 16 July 1947, Page 8

EMPLOYERS PROPOSE ORDER ON BASIS OF UNSKILLED WORKERS’ RATES

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 15. Agreement that disparities had arisen in. the general wage structure was expressed, to-day by Mr W. E. Anderson, who is representing the employers at the Arbitration Court’s hearing of the application for a general pronouncement on wages rates. Mr Anderson commenced his address to the court late this afternoon, and had not proceeded far when the court adjourned. He suggested that the court might decide the wage of unskilled workers and restore the margins which 1 had existed between workers of various classes at a time when, in the court’s opinion, a proper relationship had existed between those classes. After reviewing movements in wage rates prior to 1942, Mr Anderson said that in December, 1942, the Economic Stabilisation' Emergency Regulations had been gazetted. Unfortunately, these regulations had not been enforced, and until 1945 the Arbitration Court appeared to.be the only authority, that had’any serious regard for them.

■: Coal miners, waterside workers, chemical manure workers, and other groups not registered under the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been provided by the Government with wage-fixing tribunals of their own, which had had no regard for Arbitration Court standards and apparently none for the stabilisation regulations. Workers bound by court awards had naturally become dissatisfied, and the Government had provided several groups with tribunals under _ the Strikes and Lockout Regulations, which had also acted with no apparent regard for the stabilisation regulations, court standards, or the margins estab-lished-oyer the years. He did not suggest that the employers had/been blameless, and must admit that many—particularly those whose prices had not been rigidly controlled—had sought to increase wages, notwithstanding the regulations, in order to attract workers to their undertakings, Mr Anderson said. DISRUPTED STRUCTURE. By February, 1945, the wage structure had become so disrupted that the Governinent had empowered the court to make a general pronounce-, ment on wage rates and amend awards, agreements, and apprenticeship orders to restore a proper relationship between the- workers of various classes. The court, in its pronouncement in 1945. had made it clear that the increases granted would not be general, as. that would merely perpetuate the existing anomalies. Subsequently, it bad amended awards and agreements, and in all except a few cases had granted the full increase in addition to what had already been gained, the amended rates operating from April 1, 1945.

In February last, - the Minister of Labour, announcing an amendment to the Economic Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, had “Material disparities have arisen in the general wage structure.” Mr Anderson said he agreed, and found it difficult to argue that the margins over the wage of the pick-and-shovel ■ labourer, which bad been recognised since 1920, should not be .restored. He: suggested that the court should decide the wage of the unskilled worker and select a date on which a proper relationship had existed between the workers of various classes. The court should then restore the margins over the new labourers’ rate which had existed on tlie date selected.

Whatever the pronouncement was, the workers would immediately demand more, and employers whose prices were uncontrolled or who could pass on wage increases would>accede to the workers’ demands in ordor to have an advantage in the labour market. POWER OF COURT. He agreed that it was not withimthe court’s power to restrict parties in Conciliation Council, but submitted that recommendations and agreements increasing wages above the new standard should not be approved by the court. He considered the court alone should have the right to fix wage rates. The rates fixed after the hearing of the present application should be adhered to unless or until the cost of living or whatever other measuring stick was adopted justified an alteration. , He could _ not suggest a better measuring stick than the cost of living. The measuring stick certainly should not be the one employed in 1945 and again to-day—namely, the increases agreed upon in conciliation councils gained as the result of direct action and awarded by tribunals subordinate to and less competent than the Arbitration Court to adjudicate on such matters.