Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT CRITICISED.

JUDGE ERASER’S REJOINDER. NOT EMBARKING ON “MAft SCHEME.R By T«l«traph—Pro»* JLaiociatlaa. AUCKLAND, October 6. Mr Justice Frazer answering criticism' of the arbitration system disabused the idea that the Court was embarking on “a mad scheme” without considering the economic conditions of the country, and pointed out that the minimum rates of pay were so fixed as to proviso for periods of adversity as well BM of prosperity. _ ’ Judging by the criticism the Judge remarked, one would think the Court had been increasing wages in every instance, irrespective of the conditions of the country, or of the trade concerned, and that every time a Union came along tor a new award, it received an increase. The actual position was that in September 1925, after considering the matter fully, the Court decided to add Id an hour extra to the general labourers’ rate of wages. There were corresponding increases granted workers I who did not come under the classificaI tion of general labourers, but there were (certain exceptions for workers favour- ! ably situated at that time. It was two I years ago that the Court came to the conclusion that it could properly raise the current rate of wages to their present level. Any increases granted in the past two years therefore, consisted merely of the application of the pronouncement of 1925 to existing rates. In other words, every increase given since 1925 was something that became due them, and could omy lie payable as the different awards expired, and were renewed. . , , „ “The 1925 rate was intended, Mr Justice Frazer concluded, “as a minimum for unskilled labour in casual work. The -wages were fixed with the knowledge that the country would probably have to meet periods of depression in the future as in the past, and the Court had come to the conclusion that the country was able, in periods of prosperity,! to pay more than Is lOd an hour minimum, and at the time, pay that rate in periods of adversity.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19271007.2.42

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17772, 7 October 1927, Page 8

Word Count
333

ARBITRATION COURT CRITICISED. Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17772, 7 October 1927, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT CRITICISED. Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 17772, 7 October 1927, Page 8