Conflicting Opinions On Proposed Wage Revision

Northern Advocate, 17 May 1947, Page 4

Conflicting Opinions On Proposed Wage Revision

(Special) WELLINGTON, This Day. THE national executive of the Federation of Labour has been restrained from taking further action on the proposed general, wage revision through conflicting opinions in trades union ranks throughout the Dominion. The whole question has now been deferred for discussion at the federation’s annual conference commencing in Wellington on June 3.

’ It is recognised by the Federation oi' Labour that the recent amending regulations do not authorise the Court of Arbitration to make a general order increasing wages. The application by the New Zealand Engineering, Coach building, Aircraft and Related Trades' Union which was filed with the clerk of awards on Marcn 25 comprised a request to the court to make a new pronouncement on standard wages rates and to increase by Gd an hour the rates in the engineers’ award, which have not been altered since April 1, 1945. It is the view of the Federation of Labour that amendment No. 11 does not .affect the court's powers to make a further pronouncement. Clause 39C empowers the court to amend the rates of remuneration on the application of any award or industrial agreement, having regard to any increases granted since March 17 1945, and the proper relationship factor.

Employees’ Union and four unions or branches in Otago., The Southland Trades Council urged the national executive t-o proceed. It appears that several trades councils considered that legislation should be enacted for a general increase of £1 a week.

As a result of these objections the national executive of the federation met the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) and the Minister of Labour (Mr McLagan) recently. The results of this meeting no doubt will be discussed at i the annual conference of the fedration. Meanwhile, the date of the hearing of the application is a matter for negotiation between the employers and the workers’ representatives and for the convenience of the Arbitration Court. CHURCH NOTICES

The opinion is held by the federation that if any union is dissatisfied with the court’s pronouncement the clauses of the regulations would then permit it to make an application to “restore and preserve" or to maintain a “proper relationship.” Since the last standard wages pronouncement on March 17, 1945, over 3() groups of workers have gained increases of between 5/- and 10/- a week. There were two cases in which the increase amounted to 10/- a week, one in which it totalled 18/4, and the Canterbury freezing workers, who gained £1 a week and over.

If this application had been proceeded with it would have been within the powers of the court both to make a pronouncement on standard rates and also to amend the engineers’ award, but it would not have followed that the increase granted to the engineers would have applied to all other awards, although it would no doubt have been a precedent in all cases where there had not been an increase on the 1945 rales. The Federation of Labour itself is not permitted to make application to the court, and the award of an affiliated union, the Engineers’ Union, was therefore used for the purpose of filing and as a basis for wages references.

Much of the confusion in trades union circles arises from amendpient No. 11 to the Economic Stabilisation Emergency Regulations, 1942, which was gazetted on March 12. Under clause 398 of this amendment, the court was empowered on its own motion or upon application to make pronouncement specifying standard wages rates for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers, also females and juniors, both male and female. The day after the application was filed by the Engineers' Union, , telegrams and letters objecting to the application .being lodged under the present regulations were received by the federation from the Auckland, Canterbury and Otago trades councils, the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, the New Zealand Tramways