WAGE STANDARDS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LXV, Issue 84, 8 March 1945, Page 4

WAGE STANDARDS

QUESTIONS IN COURT

EMPLOYERS' CASE

(Press Assn.) WELLINGTON, Mar 7 'Jhe case tor the employers on the standard wage question was placed before the Arbitration Court by Mr \\ . E. Anderson, employers' advocate. He said not one sound reason had been advanced to justify an increase. ■ Mr K. M. Baxter, for the employees, had «aid the general living standard had fallen in the last four or five years. The fact was that since 1914 wages had increased approximately UV per cent and the cost of 'living by about 73 per cent. The Labour Party s journal in August, 1944, said that in relation to the cost of living the income of the average New Zealand family was better than in any other part or the world, and that was before the introduction of the family allowance. Hon. W. Nash had said that the workers were enjoying a better standard of living than ever before. It had been suggested that the standard could be raised by abandoning the basing of wage rates on the minimum requirements of life. It was agreed that that practice was not altogetlier sound. 1 lie rates should be based on what labour could produce, not on what it could

consume, it was extremely difficult to persuade the Price Tribunal to approve of any price increase—very much harder than to gain increases in wages. Regarding wages for females, MiAnderson said the Court could not grant two-thirds of the rates paid to males. All it could do under the regulations was to restore the relationships well established in the past. If wage* for males were increased females should receive the same percentage of increase. The same applied to juniors' standard rates. A general increase in wages would not increase production, and it had never done so. An incentive bonus firmly tied up with production might achieve that object, but a wage increase would not. With the eoalmmers, for instance, it seemed that the more thev earned the less they did. With the'exception of the railway service Mr Baxter had given no guide to the Court. FARM LABOUR. During the first three years of the -war the" farmers received no increase in income while the workers received two wage increases. No subsequent adjustment could compensate the farmers for having carried the workers' increases in that period. His Honour pointed out that the

Court had not increased the wages of farm labour in that period. Mr Anderson replied that as a result of the wage increases to other labour farmers had had to pay more for everything. The fact that a few companies had shown additional net profits did not justify a general wage increase, Mr Anderson contended. The workers would have to show that shareholders as a class had received higher divi-

dends Mr Monteith, a of the Court, remarked that stabilisation had not prevented companies from piling up reserves Mr Anderson: Does that justify a general increase in wages? . Mr Monteith : It would give them a chance to use some of their reserves.

Mr Anderson said that from his experience the employer who was doing exceptionally well generally " passed something on. There had been tremendous wear and tear on plant which could not be replaced, aud reserves were necessary for replacement purposes after 'the, war. Dealing with the workers' suggestion that extra payments such as dirt money and night- allowances should be increased commensurate with any general pronouncement, Mr Anderson said employers hoped the Court would not decide to vary the wage rates in any way. If it did, it was contended that the special payments should be left alone. In opposing an increase it was contended that such an increase would not add to production but because of its application only to workers under awards and agreements would detrimentally affect other sections of the community and the economic situation generally. The formal case for the employers pointed out that in addition to wage increases over recent years the general conditions of employment had been varied in favour of the workers as in the case of paid statutory holidays. EFFECT ON STABILISATION. "If the Court of Arbitration had beeD the only wage-fixing tribunal the stabilisation plan wouid, in our opinion, have succeeded, but unfortunately for New Zealand there have been many other wagefixing authorities such as the Waterfront Control Commission, the (Joal Mines Council, and numerous committees set up under the Strike and L<ockout Emergency Regulations, 1939, the decisions of which are usually given by the chairman and various other authorities," said the employers' statement. "These independent wage-fixing authorities have little conception of and no regard for Arbitration Court standards. It is true that they are required to have regard to the general purpose of the Stabilisation Regulations, but it is rarely evident from their decisions that they have done so. Committees set up under the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations have on more than one occasion functioned for all intepts and purposes as courts of appeal from the decisions of the Court of Arbitration."

Owing to variations in the rates of pay and conditions of employment which during- recent years had been granted by the Coal Mines Co.uncil, the wages cost per ton of coal mined in the case of one company owning and operating two coal mines had increased from 6s per ton in 1935 to 12 s 11.97 d per ton in 1942, and to 17s '3.78d in 1945. In the case of another company owning and operating two coal mines the cost per ton had increased from 6b 9.55 d in 1935 to lis 7.83 d in 1942 and to 15s 0.32 d in 1945.

The miners had disregarded the Government's stabilisation plan and no serious attempt had been made by the authorities to require them to abide by it. So simple had the procedure of obtaining wage increases become by using the Strike and Lockout Emergency Regulations that union* which had hitherto been law-abiding bodies were now using that machinery or wer» considering doing so. In introducing the stabilisation plan the Minister had urged the community not to have anything to do with the black market in goods, but there was a very active black market in which wage increase* could be obtained, and no attempt whatever had been made to suppress it. Thei* was ample provision in the law under which the advocates of- direct action could be dealt with, but instead of bringing them before the Courts to be fined the Minister conveniently provided them with a tribunal which invariably granted their requests.

In introducing the fifth amendment to the Stabilisation Regulations the Prime Minister had said that "during the last two years in the adjustment of our economy to the constant changing stresses of the war some classes of workers have received increases in wages and others have not." What Mr Fraser meant, and what in the employers' opinion he should have said, was that during the last two years some classes of workers by taking direct action or by threatening to take direct action had obtained wage increases in the black market. If the Government was sincere in its desire to promote the economic stability of New Zealand it would take appropriate steps to prevent the wage structure becoming unbalanced by delegating all wage fixation to one authority and imposing a penalty on those who declined to accept the findings of such an authority. It was suggested that the Court should recommend the Government to take such action. ■>„