WAGES FIGHT.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20649, 25 June 1935, Page 5

WAGES FIGHT.

Problem Over Deductions From Pay. COURT RULING SOUGHT. (Special to the “ Star.”> SYDNEY, June 19. The P’ederal Arbitration Court is just now considering a delicate question in which legality and ethical principles appear, by no means for the first time, to come into direct conflict. Last year the State Government succeeded in applying its Salaries Reduction Act to a large proportion of its tramway employees who work under Federal awards. The power of the State to take this course was made a matter of appeal, and early in April the High Court announced that the action of the State was illegal. This to most people would have moant that the money deducted from the tramway men’s pay, having been taken from them illegally, must now be restored. But one of the chief duties of a Government department seems always to be to decline to surrender any money which, rightly or wrongly, has once come into its possession. Accordingly we And the State Commissioner for Road Transport, at the request of the Stevens Government, making application to the Federal Arbitration Court for a variation in the award which would render it unnecessary for the department to restore the money in question. As the total amount is nearly £50,000, no doubt the Transport officials think that it is worth fighting for. But what they are asking for is this—that the Federal Arbitration Court, though the High Court has declared the State’s interference with these salaries illegal, shad now “ vary the award ” —that is, reduce the rate of wages for the men concerned, during the period in question *by an amount which would just cover the sum that, in the opinion of the tramway men, ought now to be handed back to them. When this matter came before the Federal Arbitration Court only one Tudge—Mr fustice Drake-Brockman—-

ivas on the Bench. Mr Hall, appearing :or the Conjmissioner, argued that the original intention of the award was to allow the State to apply the State Salaries Reduction Act, but through careless wording the clause was in law inoperative. lie therefore asked for a variation in the award which would, n effect, deprive the men of power to daim what the High Court had declared to be their lawful rights. It is not surprising that Mr Justice Drake-Brockman at first preferred to reserve his decision, and later, at the suggestion of Mr Ferguson, appearing or the tramway men, referred the question to the Full Bench of the Arbitration Court, to determine what may lave been its original intention. It is conceivable—though it hardly seems probable—that the Full Court nay decide to vary the award in accordance with the wishes of the TransDort Commissioner and the State Government. But the fact remains that the High Court of Australia has declared these reductions illegal, according to the present letter of the law; md the majority of people will not easily be convinced that a course which s admittedly intended to prevent men rom securing what the highest Court n the land has defined as their legal -ights is either dignified or honourable ar desirable. It is quite conceivable that if the itevens Government secures its object, t may find that its public prestige and ts political reputation have suffered njuries which even the £50,000 at stake could not repair. As the Full Bench af the Arbitration Court has now reserved judgment, we have still to earn if . its decision will help Mr stevens in his scheme for what the ‘ Labor Daily ” terms “ welching the rammies.”