GENERAL ORDER

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

GENERAL ORDER

FINAL SUBMISSIONS WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS CASE BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT PA WELLINGTON, Mar. 29. A request that the court issue a general order was made by Mr K. McL. Baxter, secretary of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, when the Court of Arbitration to-day resumed its hearing of the applications by the workers and employers for a standard wage pronouncement. Mr Baxter said the applicant party had been directed by a resolution of the trade union movement to request the court to issue a general order. Provision for this, he said, was contained in the amended economic stabilisation emergency regulations. Mr Baxter replied to the submissions made last week by Mr H. F. Butland, on behalf of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation, and the evidence submitted on the employers’ behalf by Professor A. H. Tocker and Mr D. L. M. Martin, and he also made his final submissions on behalf of the workers. Not to be Retrospective

“I can answer that quickly,” said Mr Justice Tyndall, when Mr Baxter requested that any increase granted by the court be made retrospective as from March 15. The answer is ‘No.’ It is impossible—we have not the power.” His Honor added that if a general order were made it would operate from the date on which his signature was apended to the order, or such later date as might be specified, but not from any earlier one. In the course of his summing up, Mr Baxter stated: “The important issues before the court are, we submit, that the discrepancies between wages and other rewards be satisfactorily adjusted, that the discontent in the minds of employees be allayed, that peace and goodwill prevail in industry, that production increase and that the economic progress of the Dominion be preserved and accelerated. We are sure that the court will give careful consideration to all trends and tendencies, and will give every consideration to our claim for the restoring of the incomes of the salaries and wages group in 1949 to the position they enjoyed in 1938-39 in relation to the remuneration received by other sections of the community.”

“Despite what Professor Tocker and Mr Martin have written and said in claiming that the workers are receiving a fair share of the products of industry and the national income, we cannot emphasise too much that the organised workers have a different opinion, have shown distinct evidence of discontent, and are becoming increasingly conscious of the shortcomings of the economic system,” said Mr Baxter.

“ With due credit to all the facts, figures and evidence submitted to the court, we would respectfully submit and emphasise that the issue which has to be considered and decided is whether it will be advantageous to the Dominion for the court to grant a wage increase. Is it not better for the employers to encourage the workers to increase production, by assisting in the granting of increased wage rates, as production increases, than it is for therh to resist continually the workers’ claims, with consequent dislocation and, perhaps, stoppages in industry? The information available to the representatives of the workers is to the effect that the workers do not feel disposed to sustain and intensify their efforts to increase production without some indication that their share will correspondingly increase.” Making of Order Opposed

The employers opposed the making of a general order amending rates of wages in all awards and agreements rather than a pronouncement on standard rates of wages, said Mr H. F. Rutland, for the New Zealand EmSloyers’ Federation, replying to Mr axter’s submissions. A general order would have the effect of continuing existing-margins above the standard rates, whether established legally or illegally, and there was ample evidence that many of them were established illegally. Mr Butland said the court should not make an order which could be interpreted as authorising an addition to the illegal rate of wages. If the court did make a general order, it should exclude from its operation all awards made since October 1, 1947, which contained rates of wages higher than those operative from that date. These awards could be examined separately and aporopriate adjustments made. Mr Butland asked that any pronouncement increasing wages should operate not earlier than six weeks after the date of issue of the court’s decision to enable awards and agreements to be amended before the operative date. If the court decided to make a general order it should allow at least a fortnight in which notification could be given to the parties concerned to enable them to make the necessary adjustments to apply correctly the court’s Amendments to awards which he had suggested be amended separately, after taking into account increases in wage rates since October 1, 1947, should operate from the date they were made or the operative date of the general order, which ever was the later.

Replying, Mr Baxter submitted that at least the court should make any increases awarded operative from the date its decision was made.