PRICE OF HOGSHEADS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16494, 3 August 1921, Page 7

PRICE OF HOGSHEADS.

EXCESS PROFITS ALLEGED BY UNION.

COST OF LIVING QUESTION

That brewers increased the price of hogsheads by 9s to pay a bonus to their employees, received a profit of £9490 over and above the bonus as the result of the increased charge, and then took the bonus off without reducing the price of hogsheads was alleged by Mr R. D. Martin, in the Arbitration Court this morning. The allegation was denied by tlie employers. The case under consideration was the subject of a pronouncement by tlio Court concerning the bonus question. The Christchurch brewers and maltsters applied for a bonus of 8s a week. The union was represented by Mr R. D. Martin, with him Mr R. W. Walker, secretary of the union. For the employers Mr F. Cooper, with him Mr O. H. Hewlett, appeared. Mr Martin said that in the Court's judgment in which it decided to stabilise wages for a certain period in lieu of granting the bonus made necessary by the cost of living, it stated that it was open to any union to appear before the Court for the bonus if special circumstances could be proved. One of the special reasons why the bonus had not been granted by the Court was that it would injure industry. The union considered that the brewing industry was in such a flourishing state at the present time that there was no danger likely to result to it by tho granting of the bonus. In fact, they contended that the employers had made ample provision for the bonus so far back as November last. In November, when it was announced that the cost of living warranted a 9s bonus, the employers decided to pay a bonus of 8s 5d a. week, bringing maltsters’ wages up to £4 14s Bd. Now thev had brought it back to £4 9s Id, by taking off the bonus. To meet the cost of the bonus they had increased the price of hogsheads by 9s, however. The average output was 1000 hogsheads a week, and the increased price thus brought in £450 extra, or £11,700 extra in six months. Tho bonus cost the firms £Bq a week, or a total of £2210 in six months. Thus the increased charge yielded in six months £9490 above the cost of the bonus. The Wellington rate for maltsters was £4 13s.

Mr Cooper asked if the application was admissible under the War Regulations Act. He submitted that no bonus could be granted unless the wages could be shown to bo below the standard set bv the Court. The state of the industry, he submitted, was irrelevant. Tho Court said they had no intention to make differential awards based upon the state of industries. That did not come under the heading of special circumstances such as the Court contemplated in its judgment referred to. Mr Martin said that the union had an additional reason for making the application—that semi-skilled men were working in the industry at a wage below that specified in the Gisborne pronouncement. The Court stated that the wage paid was not below the minimum wage stipulated bv the Court, and therefore yfchat point could not be taken into consideration. The Court retired to consider the admissibility of the application. “ The facts speak for themselves said his Honor, upon resuming. “The Court made an interim pronouncement in November last that the bonus for the half-year would be 3s week. The committee set up in this industry decided, irrespective of the question of whether cr not a formal order for that amount would be made, to pay the 9s bonus. Both sides took the risk of the formal order granting more or less than that, and made an agreement for six months. The agreement was tested in the Magistrate’s Court, and the decision by the Magistrate was in our opinion quite a commonsense one. The agreement has now run out. the . six months having expired. The position is. therefore, that the workers in this industry received approximately 6s a week for six months more than the Court would have awarded hud the application come on in the ordinary way.” Naturally, now that the employers had ceased paying the 8s 5d bonus, the workers thought that they were being deprived of something. But the legal position was that, had they come to the Court in the ordinary Way, they would have received only 3s a week bonus. The union contended that the employers had put on an extra charge for hogsheads amounting to considerably more than 9s a week, and sought to get evidence from the brewers to that effect. Even if the Court assumed that this extra profit was being made, as a matter of law it was not relevant at this stage. If Ihe Court was called upon to make a new award in tho industry the fact of very large profits being made, if proved, would be a relevant consideration if tho employers wished to lower the wages, or pay wages below the usual standard. The Court did not, as a usual rule, weigh profits against wages, because the Court held that if a trade could not pay a living wage it should not be carried on. That principle the Court* would not depart from. In the present *?ase the Court was concerned solely with the cost of living, and the question of extra profits made by the employers did not come within its purview. The Court would express no opinion concerning the union’s suggestion that the extra charge amounted to profiteering. If it was profiteering it was a matter for the Board of Trade and not for tho Court. Tho wages paid to the workers did not fall below the minimum wage, and any question of classification could only bo dealt with when the next application for an award was made. (i That seems to be the position,” said his Honour. “We have discussed it quite freely, and we aro agreed that although what is sought to be brought forward would in certain circumstances be relevant in making a new' award, yet it cannot be so regarded now. Therefore the evidence which tho union wishes to call cannot be called if the other side objects.” Mr Cooper said that the other side had made certain statements about the profits. His Honor had remarked that there had been made no statement to tho contrary. His Honor said be had merely assumed the facts correct for the purposes of his judgment, although, of course, he did not puss judgment upon them as facts. Mr Cooper asked for permission to make a statement to counteract Mr Martin’s statement. His Honor said he thought it unnecessary that the Court should go into the facts of the case, seeing that the application could not be heard. He took it that all Mr Cooper wished to do was to say that tho facts as stated by Mr Martin did not truly represent the position. ‘‘ Yes,” that is so,” said Mr Cooper. “ I can deny absolutely that the facts give the slightest indication of tho merits of the case.” The facts were entirely foreign to the actual position. The industry was not making undue profits, and was not carrying at the present time even normal profits. Mr Hewlett said that the position with regard to the price of hogsheads was that the price of beer had been raised 48.7 per cent since pre-war days, whereas wages had gone up 70 to 80 per cent. The union was granted a formal order for the current 3s bonus.