NO ALTERATION IN WAGES

Taranaki Daily News, 3 October 1929, Page 13

NO ALTERATION IN WAGES

WATERSIDE WORKERS AWARD MEN’S REPRESENTATIVE DISSENTS WHAT CONSTITUTES BASIC WAGE? By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Oct. 2. No alteration has been made in the rate of wages in the New Zealand waterside workers’ award filed in the Court of Arbitration to-day. The main dispute with which the court was concerned was the general cargo rate which is the basic rate for the industry. The majority of the court, Mr. Justice Blair and Mr. Schmidt (employers’ representative), found there had been no change in conditions warranting any increase in the new award. The previous rate had been adopted, but some minor adjustments had been made in the nature of increases to correct some inconsistencies in the old award. The union claimed that the general cargo, rate should be increased by 2d an hour, the basis of the claim being that the casualness of employment in the industry was greater than was assumed to be the case when the court fixed the rates in the expired 1924 award. The majority of the court found there was no evidence to support the suggestion that any increase in the basic rate was justified on the ground of increased casualness. There was a marked divergence in the views of members of the court upon the question of what was called the “basic wage.” The advocate for the union contended that the “man, wife and two children” basis was positively fixed as the basis upon which the court calculated the basic wage of the adult worker. That view was upheld by Mi. Monteith, the workers’ representative on the court. . ■ The majority of the court held that the view was not a proper basis and was, moreover, an unsound basis. After the discussion upon the question of wages, Mr. Monteith dissociated himself from any participation in the settlement of the remaining qiiestion left for discussion. He wrote a dissenting opinion in which he made it clear that he refrained from taking any part in the framing of the award. Mr. Monteith concluded: “As the increase to which they are entitled has been refused I will not attempt to take any responsibility for any untoward happening in this industry as the result of, in my opinion, the inadequate wage allowed.”