AMENDMENT OF AWARDS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16497, 6 August 1921, Page 9

AMENDMENT OF AWARDS.

MUTUAL CONSENT OR COST OF LIVING.

NO OTHER GROUNDS. Variation in the cost of living is the only ground on which the Arbitration Court has jurisdiction to amend awards while they are in force, except with the mutual consent of the parties to the award. Such was the text of a judgment given by his Honor Mr Justice Frazer in the Arbitration Court today. On behalf of Canterbury paper-bag, carton and boxmakers, Mr C. Renn asked that their award bo amended so as to equalise the wages of females with the wages paid to females in Wellington. Mr Renn also asked that the award be continued on an equitable basis until the expiry of the other printing trade awards on April 2, 1922. ‘‘lt is quite true,” said his Honor, “ that in the past the Court has on occasions altered the basic rate where application has been properly before the Court on account of the cost of living. Under the War Legislation Act, of course, the jurisdiction is founded on increases in the cost of living since the date of the award. We have no jurisdiction unless that foundation is laid. Similarly, of course* if applications were in the reverse direction—asking for a reduction—there would have to be laid the foundation of a reduction in tho cost of living. Where the foundation of the c«st of living had been laid the Court has gone on occasions a little further and adjusted basic rates. In some cases, where an award is below the recognised standard, the Court has taken opnortunity of an application properly before the Court of raising those rates. ” However, the law is perfectly clear on the point. It rests on the decision of Mr Justice Cooper some years ago. It has never been questioned. This Court lias no power except in accordance with tho War Legislation Act, and one or two clauses in the principal Act to alter an award during its currency. The application before the Oourt is not properly based on any consideration set out in the War Legislation Act, and we have come to the conclusion that there is no jurisdiction. It is not a question of the merits of the case, but merely the jurisdiction of the Court. As wo have no jurisdiction wo have no right to deal with the matter. It is unfortunate that some awards run out before others and certain members of the trade in one district are on a bettor footing than others in different districts, hut that cannot be helped. To cut the matter short, we are quite convinced that there is no power as the law stands at present to enable us to deal with your application.”