COURT, REFUSES INCREASE OF WAGES TO CARPENTERS

Wanganui Chronicle, 27 May 1948, Page 5

COURT, REFUSES INCREASE OF WAGES TO CARPENTERS

Holds That Fair Relationship Exists With Other Workers

(Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 26 The Court, of Arbitration, in a judgment delivered tonight, declined an application for an amendment of the N.Z. Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Award.

The Carpenters’ Union recently stated a case to the court for an increase in wages. This step followed the abandonment of a “go-slow” strike which was originally instituted as a protest at the failure of the court to grant the carpenters wage claims when the award was made last year.

The judgment of the Court, issued by Judge D. J,. Dalglish, said the basis of the application was that carpenters' wages, as fixed by the amendment of August 21, 1947, did not bear a proper relationship to the wages payable to other workers engaged in the building industry, and that to restore or preserve proper relationship the carpenters’ minimum wage should be increased to 3s 81d an hour, instead of a rate of 3s 7d previously awarded. The wages, concerning which the union claimed a proper relationship did not exist, were those ot fibrous plasterers and of plumbers and gasfitters, both of which classes now received 3s Sid, and both had been entitled, from April 1, 1945, to the same wages as carpenters. CARPENTERS’ SUBMISSIONS The Carpenters’ Union submitted that it was the duty of the Court to restore or preserve the relationships which existed immediately after the amendments to various awards which followed the standard wages pronouncement of March 17, 1945. In the opinion of the Court this was-not a correct interpretation of the regulations. Such an interpretation would mean that the Court would not. while the regulations remained in operation, make any award which varied the relationship between two different classes of workers, even though the Court was firmly ot opinion that a proper relationship did not exist with other existing wage rates. The Court might find that it was necessary to alter the wage rates for a number of reasons. It wa,s clear that the Court was not bound by any such strict “rule of thumb" under the regulations, as under these the Court was

authorised to amend an award in such a manner as it thought fit. Referring to the wages of plumbers, the judgment said the Court granted an increase because of the lengthy apprenticeship which plumbers were required to serve. Plasterers had for many years received higher wages than had carpenters, and in Canterbury, for a number of years, fibrous p.asterers had been on the same basis as other plasterers. In November, 11946, fibrous plasterers, for most of the rest of New Zealand, were placed , on the same basis as other plasterers. 1 “It is clear,’’ said the judgment, ' that the two classes of workers to whose rates of wages the applicant, union specially refers are workers . whose rates of wages have been alter,ed in relation to rates of wages of other classes of workers in the building industry for special reasons.’’ I The Court pointed out that the ' wages of bricklayers had, at all material times, been about 3id an hour over those of carpenters. The same app ied to plasterers other than fibrous plasterers. DISSENTING JUDGMENT In a dissenting judgment the workers' representative on the Court (Mr. 1. C. Allerby) said that when the carI penters’ former application was be- • fore the Court he recorded his dis- ' senting opinion, in which he stated that a case could be made out for an . increase in the skilled rate. He was I still of that opinion. i With wage adjustments made I over a Fong period of years on the ' basis of fiat increases over the i whole wage structure, the effecI five wage of a skilled tradesman had appreciably declined as eon» I pared with that of other classes <■ workers. The monetary margi* ' today for skill was al>out the same ' as had prevailed for many years, i but represented now only a fracj tion of the purchasing power it represented when first established. Comparison with various wage rates paid in all industries should be taken into consideration, instead of limiting the comparisons to one or two individual cases.