NOT ESTABLISHED

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27043, 30 March 1949, Page 6

NOT ESTABLISHED

Waterside Workers’ Case for Higher Wages REJECTED BY AUTHORITY PA WELLINGTON, Mar. 29. “After careful consideration of the submissions made to the authority on behalf of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union in support of its claim for one shilling an hour increase in the basic rate of pay, the Waterfront Industry Authority is satisfied that those submissions fail to establish a case for any increase beyond the interim increase of 2*d an hour which came into operation on February 14,” says the judgment given to-day by the Waterfront Industry Authority and signed by Judge D. J. Dalglish. The union representatives on the authority, Messrs H. Barnes and T. Hill, recorded their dissent from the decision and from the terms of the memorandum attached to it. The authority announced on February 9 that it would give further consideration to the union’s claim for an increase of one shilling hourly to the basic wage.

The memorandum with the decision deals in detail with each of the union s submissions. The union's claim for the increase was based on the main ground that the increase was necessary to restore the position of watersiders to that which they enjoyed in 1938. The first argument put forward in support of that ground was that the position of salary and wage earners in relation to that of other income groups, as disclosed by official figures relating to the national income, had deteriorated by 8 per cent. The authority’s judgment said the following facts emerged from an examination of the \ estimates of _ the national income to which the unions submissions referred:— (a) The national income was regarded as including the pay and allowances of the armed forces. (b) The national income was regarded as including social security benefits and pensions, a large portion of which was received by wage and salary earners. (c) The national income was regarded as including the rental value of owner-occupied houses.

workers. The Waterfront Industry Authority was not prepared to agree to a variation of the basis upon which waterside workers’ rates of remuneration had been arrived at while the economic stabilisation emergency regulations continued to operate. It followed that if, while the regulations remained in force, standard rates of pay were increased by the Arbitration Court to a greater extent than 2Jd, then, in the opinion of the authority, there would be a prima facie case for a further increase in the rates of pay of waterside workers. The union’s sixth argument was that waterside workers were skilled workers, and a margin should be granted for skill. To grant margins would disturb the present relationship between the wages of waterside workers and the wages of those engaged in other industries. The authority was not • prepared to agree to granting margins for skill unless the strongest possible case was put forward, showing, for example, some substantial change in the nature of the work calling for more skill. That had not been done.

(d) The accruals to the balances of the primary produce stabilisation accounts which were not distributed to producers were treated as income. It was clear, therefore, that consideration of movements in the relative positions of wage and salary earners, on the one hand, and the recipients of other income, on the other hand, could not be begun until adjustments had been made to deal with those factors. Further, it might well be argued that the table which should be considered was not the table which had been quoted by the union, but the table which related to private disposable income after deduction of taxes. The latter table presented a slightly different picture. Vital Factors Omitted

“Even if it were possible to make adjustments in relation to the above* mentioned factors to show more truly the relationship between the income of wage and salary earners and the income of. other persons during the 10 years covered by the estimates, there would still be further calculations to be made to ascertain the present position,” the judgment continued. “ Such factors as the full effect on wage and salary earners of the wage increase granted at October 1, 1947, and the effect on recipients of other income of the alteration of the exchange rate made in . August, 1948, would have to be taken into account. The need to make the various adjustments indicated shows how unsatisfactory it would be to adopt statistics as to the national income as a basis for adjusting wages. “Another aspect which would require to be considered,” said the authority, “ was what period should be adopted as the base from which to make calculations. The union’s case assumed the year 1938-39 to be the proper base to be adopted, presumably because that was the first year in respect to which official estimates of the national income were published. No argument has been submitted as to why that year should be adopted as the base. From the monthly Abstract of Statistics for December, 1948, it would have appeared that in 1938 and 1939 retail prices and export prices were below the average for the peribd 1926-30, while in 1938 and 1939 the weekly money wage rates were above the average for the period 1926-30. That would seem to indicate that the year 1938-39 would not be the proper period to adopt as a base used for apportionment of the national income. “ Ddring the period April 1, 1931, to March 31. 1935, wages and salary represented a much higher percentage of the national income than the percentage claimed for by the union, based on the year 1938-39. There was no method suggested by the union whereby any lump sum to which wage and salary earners generally might be found to be entitled for the increased income was to be converted in respect of the waterside workers into a specific amount an hour by way of an increase of wages.

Without more cogent argument than that submitted, the authority was not prepared to agree that it was possible to largue from the estimates covering the perid of 10 years to March 31, 1948, that a particular class of wage earners was now, 12 months later, entitled to an increase of so much an hour.

The union’s second argument was that under the co-operative contracting system as operated by the Waterfront Industry Commission the waterside worker received less than he would have been receiving if the employers’ proposals made in 1938 for a new award on a piecework basis had been operating. The authority found that this argument failed because the proposals put forward in the course of the submissions to the Arbitration Court were put forward for the purpose of getting agreement between the parties or assisting the court, and once the proposals were rejected they could not subsequently be accepted. Comparisons with Award Kates

The union’s third argument was that the watersiders’ hourly rates were maximum rates, while in the majority of industries the award rates were minimum rates and in those industries the employer had to pay more than award rates for labour or go without The authority said there was no proof as to the number of industries in which payments above award rates had been made or as to the extent to which they had been made The authority could not grant an increase of wages merely on the ground that it was necessary for the purpose' of maintaining a proper relationship between waterside workers’ wages and those of other Workers” who are receiving unlawful payments. ’ The third argument therefore failed.

The fourth argument also failed because the Waterfront Industry Authority was not concerned to see that any particular relationship was maintained between the wages of New Zealand waterside workers and the wages of waterside workers in any other country. , , The fifth argument by the union was that waterside workers’ wage, rates should be computed on the principle of excluding earnings , obtained by overtime and from special rates. The judgment said that when the Waterfront Control Commission made its first order in 1940 it had fixed the wage rate at sixpence an hour in excess of the standard hourly rate prescribed for unskilled workers and one penny an hour in excess of the standard wage for skilled workers. That margin above the standard wage for skilled workers had been maintained since October 1, 1947. and the interim increase of 2Jd granted recently had been granted to maintain the relative r»osition of the wages of waterside