FUTURE IN DOUBT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26693, 12 February 1948, Page 8

FUTURE IN DOUBT

INDUSTRIAL LIFE ASSURANCE NEW PROBLEMS EMERGING P.A WELLINGTON, Feb. 10. Industrial life assurance faced unprecedented problems, and its continuance in its present form was in doubt, said Mr W. J. Mountjoy in the Court of Arbitration yesterday. His assertion followed a reference by him to the fall in interest earnings over the past 17 years. This formed part of his submissions as advocate for five life assurance offices undertaking industrial assurance who are respondents in an application by the New Zealand Life Assurance Agents, Canvassers and Collectors’ , Industrial Union of Workers for a new award. With Mr Mountjoy as adviser is Mr F. Royer, Australian advocate with experience in similar disputes. The workers’ advocate, Mr H. Kay, is accompanied by the Federal secretary of the Australian Life Assurance Agents’ Union, Mr Ay. R. Colbourne. The court comprises Judge Tyndall, Mr W. C. Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr F. C. Allerby (workers’ representative). Mr Kay requested the court to deal with the terms of agency agreements made between individual members of the union and their employers. He said it was well known that life offices were contemplating a 10 per cent, reduction in the collecting commission paid to agents. That could easily be brought about by cancelling current agency agreements, which were subject to seven days’ notice on either side, and substituting new ones with a lower commission. The union declined to protect its members by inserting provisions of collecting commission rates in the award, and the employers’ proposals to continue the agreements would amount to what could be termed two separate awards —one enforceable in the Court of Arbitration, and the other enforceable only by civil claim taken by individual workers in another court. Mr Kay sought increases in commissions and the raising of the present minimum weekly rate of remuneration from £6 2s 8d to £7. . . . A sub-clause in the counter claims proposing that the award should not apply to workers whose income was in excess of £450 a year was strongly opposed on the grounds that it was an attempt by the employers to divide the union’s membership. In the course of submissions for the employers, Mr Mountjoy said the premium was fixed when the policy was issued and could not be increased, no matter how long its term. Because of this and because officers had to budget many years ahead, the conduct of their business became impossible if there were the fact or possibility of commission rates being determined by processes of collective bargaining or even—with respect—by the court. Their submission was that the highly technical function of managing the industry should be left to the management of assurance offices, and the court should protect the agent by giving him an appropriate minimum remuneration. Assurace offices contended that the present award was more than generous, and were prepared to offer it for a' further three years.