FIXING WAGES

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 25052, 16 November 1944, Page 4

FIXING WAGES

FUNCTIONS OF COURT

THE STABILISATION LAW

POWER TO MAKE INCREASES

The functions of the Arbitration Court under the amendments to the Stabilisation Regulations were outlined by Mr Justice Tyndall when a claim for a new industrial award for timber workers was heard yesterday. Tlio employers' representative, Mr A. Seed, said that, as the claim mainly involved wage increases, ho understood these would come under the Stabilisation Regulations. Ho knew the Court had certain discretion, but he would like the position clarified, and that might shorten proceedings. His Honor said that before the last amendment to the Stabilisation Regulations the Court had been bound tairly hard and fast and could not vary rates oi' remuneration except where anomalies existed. The Court was not now bound by that specific reference, but it must have regard to the main purpose of the regulations, which was to promote economic stability in New Zealand.

"I do not propose to give any precise definition on that, as we must take every dispute on its merits," said His Honor. "1 think the intention of the regulations is that the Court should not be restricted in the performance of its functions as it was in the past. We still have some curb on us, but it is left to our discretion to decide what is in the interests of economic stability and that responsibility is put on this Court. It seemed that the last amendment to the regulations aimed at relieving the Court from the stringent restrictions previously imposed on it. "The Court, before making any newaward, must have regard to stabilisation, but a number of agreements have come before the Court providing for increases in wages and the Court has approved of them where it was satisfied that tlie.v did not conflict with the main regulations. 1 mention that as an indication that there is no absolute prohibition on increasing rates, but it is obvious that there are still some restrictions as to what can be granted." Later in the proceedings His Honor said it was useless for advocates to mention the cost of living, as the Court was barred from taking any increase of that into consideration.