COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18278, 20 December 1922, Page 11

COST-OF-LIVING BONUS.

CITY COUNCIL. ACTION.

"MISPLACED GENEROSITY."

EXPLANATION OF POSITIOiN".

The order of the Arbitration Court re- . ducing the cost-of-living bonus was under ! discussion at a recent meeting of the i executive of the Auckland Employers' j Association. The action of the City Council in not putting the order into operation until April next was referred to, and the opinion was expressed that, apart from the moral obligation of the council to conserve the citizens' interests in the cost of services rendered, their decision to refrain from following the recent Arbitration Court's pronouncement authorising a reduction of 3s per week in wages, placed other employers, who had acted upon the reduction, in a, false position. I Reference -was also made to a recent I occasion in the South, where similar i "misplaced generosity" on the part of i employers was actually cited by the cm- ; ployeeV representative before the Court i as evidence against the claim for rcduc- ! tion. The secretary pointed out the somewhat I difficult position in which the City Coun- ! cil was placed by reason of its working | under two different sets of conditions in I regard to its labourers. The first, cover- ! ing the ordinary city labourers, was mado j by agreement in Conciliation Council under I the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitraj tion Act, and therefore it automatically i came under the jurisdiction of the Arbij tration Court in regard to the cost-of-living bonuses. The second agreement, which would ex- ; pire on June 2, was made under the | Labour Disputes Investigation Act, in reI gard to the tramway employees. Such ! agreements, unless especially provided for, were not affected by orders of the Arbitration Court. This agreement, which was made under the chairmanship of Professor Seager, was the only one made in this district under the Labour DisI putes Investigation Act that did not contain a clause making it subject to the I orders of the Court. I In it the wages for tramway labourers j were fixed at |d per hour more than the i rate fixed for general labourers in the j council's general award, or any other i labourers' awards. The ratepayers were I therefore at a disadvantage to the extent of Id per hour above the Court's award rates in regard to these "workers, and the difference would bo still more emphasised | should a further reduction in the cost of living take place, with a consequent reduction in the cost-of-living bonus.