LABOUR LAWS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22389, 8 April 1936, Page 15

LABOUR LAWS

FORTY-HOUR WEEE COURT AND COST FACTOR COMMENT ON PROPOSALS [by TELEGRAPH —OWN correspondent] ■WELLINGTON, Tuesday Further comment upon the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill was made to-day by Mr. T. (I. Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Employees' Federation. He made special reference to the 40-hour week and the provision for a basic wage declaration. "The bill provides that in every award made after the passing of the Act the Court of Arbitration shall fix the hours of work at not more than 40 a week, exclusive of overtime, unless the Cfiurt is of the opinion, after hearing representatives of the employers and of the workers, that it would be impracticable to carry on efficiently the industry to which the award relates if the working hours were so restricted," said Mr. Bishop. "It further provides that if application be made by any industrial union in respect of any award or industrial agreement in force at the passing of the Act, the Court shall amend the award or agreement by reducing the hours to 40 a week (exclusive of overtime), with the same proviso that the Court mav fix longer hours if in its opinion it would be impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently with the 40-hour week. . "It will be seen, therefore, that m every case of application for a„new award, and also even in the case of awards and agreements already in existence, the employers will have to answer and refute if possible a prima facie case for a 40-hour week. All that the workers' union will have to do is to ask for a 40-hour week; it is not necessary to support the request by evidence or even by argument. The onus of proving a 40-hour week impracticable in any industry will rest upon the employers. Factor of Costs

"The words 'impracticable to carry on efficiently' appear to be unduly restrictive of the Court's discretionary powers. For instance, it would certainly bo practicable to erect a building under the 40-hour week, and the building so erected would be just as good a building in every way, as if it had been erected under a 44 or 48-hour week provision. It might therefore be held that it is practicable to carry on the building industry efficiently on a. 40-hour week: but the all-important factor is that or cost, and it appears to be open to doubt whether in face of the fact that the work can be done in 40 hours and can be done efficiently in 40 hours, the cost factor could even be given consideration by the Court. " It could probably be shown to be actually impracticable to carry on many industries with a 40-hour week, but the widening of the Court's discretionary powers appears to be desirable in connection with all industries so as to ensure that the cost factor shall be taken into consideration.

Employers' Position " In some industries complete agreements have been reached by industrial negotiations within the last two or three months, and in these cases the hours have been fixed in excess of 40 a week. If the present bill becomes law, it will be open to unions bound by such agreements to apply to the Court of Arbitration for amendment of the hours provision. It will not be necessary for the union to submit any evidence in support of the application and the employers will have to defend themselves and show that if the union's request be granted it will be impracticable to carry on the industry efficiently; in other words, the defendant and not the plaintiff will be called upon to prove his case. "The provision for a basic wage declaration is new in New Zealand, but has been operative in Australia for a number of years. While in New Zealand the Court formerly had no power to declare a basic wage, in dealing with industrial disputes it adopted standard rates of pay for various classes of workers—skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled—and these standards were announced from time to time by the Court in its official pronouncements. The material difference between the past procedure and what the bill now provides lies in th© fact that the Court's .standard rates formerly became effective only as awards canife up for review, whereas under the new provision the basic wage declarations will immediately affect all those workers boirfid by * industrial awards or agreements whose rates of pay are lower than the basic wage. Amendment of Sate "There is a difference between the proposed New Zealand provision and that operating in Australia, in that, having once declared the basic wage in New Zealand, the Court is permitted to amend this rate at intervals of not less than six months, either of its own motion or on an application made to the Court by any industrial union or industrial association, whereas in Australia the basic wage must be adjusted at quarterly intervals upward or downward, in accordance with any fluctuation in the cost of living. "In connection with the basic wage declaration, the bill provides that any geueral order made by the Court may make provision for the issue of an under-rate worker's permit to any worker, entitling him to receive a wage lower than the basic rate, such permit to be issued as provided by section 145 of the principal Apt. It has been exceedingly difficult in several cases to obtain under-rate workers' permits under these provisions. "A case in point arises in connection with youths and young men who during the depression have been unable to secure apprenticeship training in skilled trades, and who are now too old to be apprenticed in the ordinary way. A number of these men might now be given training and quickly enabled to reach a considerable degree of skill, at least in the semi-skilled branches of certain trades, if they could be employed during their training periods at less than the standard ruling rates; but the issue of permits in such cases has been very greatly restricted. Some better provision for the issue of under-rate workers' permits in legitimate cases is desirable."