Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BUTCHERS' DISPUTE

IMPORTANT STATEMENT BY JUDGE FRAZER. (Per Press Association). WELLINGTON, March 23. The butchers’ dispute was heard by the Arbitration Court to-day. The □nly points on which a decision of the Court was sought was regarding wages and the term of the award. Air Croskery, for the Union, said the case was a clearing up of the butchers’ awards for the Dominion, as Wellington was the only centre not enjoying the ruling rate. As the Union had not had an opportunity of appearing before the Court for sixteen months, he asked that no reduction be made after the award had been filed. The increase in weekly wages sought was 8s 6d. Mr Grenfell, for the employer’s, said Mr Croskery apparently overlooked the fact that the workers had been receiving a bonus while waiting for the Court. He submitted that the rates in the old award be renewed. The President said it was generally recognised that the granting of higher wages had temporarily, at any rate, crime to a stop. Everyone knew industry was not yet stable and that everything depended on the price of primary products. It was the fortune of war that some unions received the benefits of the increase before others. The Court would find itself faced with serious difficulty if it tried to make a general rule that unions which obtained an award after a certain date were to be exempted from the provisions of any subsequent decisions respecting the term. His Honour was inclined to think it did not matter whether it was long or short. Decision was reserved.

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/WC19220324.2.58

Bibliographic details

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18439, 24 March 1922, Page 5

Word Count
264

BUTCHERS' DISPUTE Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18439, 24 March 1922, Page 5

BUTCHERS' DISPUTE Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18439, 24 March 1922, Page 5