THE NEW BOWS

Grey River Argus, 2 December 1920, Page 6

THE NEW BOWS

EMPLOYERS' PROTEST ARBITRATION COURT ARGUMENT. A MISUNDERSTANDING. EMPLOYERS' CASE. [Per Press Asfiociatiot).] WELLINGTON, December 1. At the resumed hearing by the Arbitration Court of the employers' appeal against tho payment of the 9s. weekly bonus, the Government Statistician said that at the request of the court the last calculation of 9s. was computed on the lines of the estimate for the previous half year. If it was. the intention of the Court that the computation should Have been made, on a six-monthly average, the acting Statistician misunderstood the instructions and the bonuses declared were computed on '■ a wrong basis. If the moving average index numbers of food alone had been used the bonus would have been substantial as shown by Mr. Pryor, namely, March to September, 1919, nil; September, 1919 to March, 1920, 1.8 pence; March to Scp'tember, 1920, 3.33 pence. Judge Stringer, replying to Mr. Reardon, feaid that the acting-Statis-tician must have completely misunderstood the position if he assumed that Ihe Avas authorised to depart from the method of calculation agreed upon. Mr. Frascr, replying to Judge Stringer, said that if tho moving average had been used for calculation the increased cost of living would have been practically as Mr. Pryor had contended. UNIONS' CASE. - Mr. Reardon, opening the case for the unions, declared that the agitation against the bonus was most reckless and obviously artificial. Although the Employers ' Federation said the Court's pronouncement came as a staggering, blow, yet many employers were already paying the bonus,. Low wages were not a remedy for unemployment, besides which the workers must have food and clothing. Mr. Reardon. suggested an examination of the balance-sheets of the principal firms and industries mentioned by Mr. Pryor. Evidence was given by the secretary of the Furniture Trades Federation denying . Mr. Pryor 's statement thai unemployment existed in those trades. Mr. McCombs contended that a ten per cent, increase in # wages would not affect the cost of living by one per coni. lie hoped tho Court would not bo stampeded by entirely spurious legislation.