Five Per Cent Increase In Wages Up To £7 A Week For Males And Up To £15s For Females

Wanganui Chronicle, 12 June 1950, Page 4

Five Per Cent Increase In Wages Up To £7 A Week For Males And Up To £15s For Females

Interim Order Of Court Retrospective To May 8; Workers Dissent

WELLINGTON, Last Night (PA).—Subject to certain ceiling limits, wages will be increased by five per cent., in accordance with an interim general wage order made by the Court of Arbitration during the week-end. The order dates from May 8, 1950, and affects all awards and industrial agreements made before and which are in force on, or are to come into force after, June 10,1950. The general order says:

“(a) Subject to the following provisions all rates of remuneration, including time and piece wages and overtime and other special payments provided for iq lhe said awards and industrial agreements, shall Ire increased by an amount equal to five per cent, thereof. “(b) There shall be excluded from the scope of this order such portion of the remuneration in each week of the workers affected by this order as exceeds the amount of £7 in the case of adult male workers, and the amount of £4 15s in the, case of adult female workers, and all junior workers. “(e) There shall be excluded from the scope of this order all allowances prescribed in any of the said awards and industrial agreements in respect of tools, bicycles, motor-vehicles, protective or special clothing, or special footwear.” The increase provided for by the order is to apply to the unexcluded portion of the prescribed minimum remuneration of each worker. The order defines "junior worker” of either sex as one, under the age of 21. COURT TO HEAR ANOTHER APPLICATION. In a memorandum attached to the order by Mr. Justice Tyndall, it is stated: "As the Court is making this an interim general order of its own motion, pursuant to Amendment No. 1 of the Economic Stabilisation Regulations, 1950, and in view of the fact that there already is an application awaiting hearing for a general order under regulation 5 of the principal regulations, it is not proposed at this stage to traverse in detail the various matters which the Court is required by the regulations to take into account when making any such, order. It should be stated, however, that in arriving at the present decision the Court has ,to some extent, anticipated the effects, both direct and indirect, which seem likely to follow the recently announced withdrawal and reduction of subsidies, and also secondary effects which obviously must follow the general adjustment to wages now being made. It is considered that the Court is justified in acting in this manner, for the reason that should any further adjustment be considered necessary after the hearing of the application already referred to, there is no power under the regulations to make such further adjustment retrospective. The Court draws attention to the following matters. "(1) As awards and industrial agreements prescribe minimum rates of remuneration only, the Court's powers of amendment are limited to minimum rates. Consequently, there is no obligation upon any employer, under the interim general order, to increase the rates of remuneration of workers who are already receiving rates of wages exceeding the minimum rate prescribed in the appropriate award, or industrial agreement, unless the excess per week is less than the weekly equivalent of the increase in the prescribed minimum rate imposed by the interim order. "(2) If it is- considered by any party to the award or industrial agreement that by reason of the special provisions of such award or agreement, or of the ec. I omic and financial conditions affecting the industry concerned, or of any other relevant consideration, any class or section of the workers should be excluded from the operation of interim order, an application to the Court may be made by the said party under Regulation 6 the Economic Stabilisa tions, 1950, and such application will he heard and determined by the Court on its merits.” The following opinions are recorded by Messrs. Prime and AUerby, who are the employers' and employeees' representatives, respectively, in the Court. EMPLOYERS OPINION. Mr. Prime: “The estimated number of wage and salary earners is 585,000 whose dependents are calculated as 660,000,000, making a total of 1,245,000 persons dependent, or partially dependent on wages and salaries. From, these figures it is clear that the increase in earnings of an average

worker of £ll 7s 4d a year, or 4s 41d per week, would compensate wage and salary earners for their immediate or early increases in expenditure, when, on the estimate of the Government Statistician, Mr. Wood, discontinuance or reduction of Government subsidies would be reflected in the consumer’s price index by the end the June quarter as to represent an increase of £5 6s lOd in annual expenditure per head of population. It is true that there may be a further indirect effect of the discontinuance or reduction of subsidies, and this order itself will probably, in time, be reflected in higher prices in some cases. But these will be delayed effects, and we are here making only an interim order designed to compensate wage and salary earners for immediate price increases pending the hearing of the application of the New Zealand Federated Furniture and Related Trades Industrial Association of workers for a Generaj order, and without prejudice to that application. In view of these facts, and bearing in mind that only last year very substantial wage and salary increases were granted, when there had been no appreciable rises in the retail prices index, since the previous general increases in wages and salaries took place, this order errs on the side of generosity, and is not, in my opinion, warranted by the figures. As, however, Mr. AUerby holds strongly to the opposite view and a deadlock might mean no order, while wage and salary earners are clearly entitled to something I refrain from recording a formal dissent. THE WORKERS’ OPINION. Mr. AUerby (dissenting from the decision of the majority of the Court): I am firmly of the opinion that the amount of five per cent, awarded with the ceiling limits fixed by majority decision of the Court will definitely inflict hardship on the workers. Mr. Walsh submitted an exhaustive examination of statistics placed before the Court by the expert witnesses, and showed conclusively that the increased cost amounted to a 15s sd, or 10.1 per cent., and this is the amount which, in my opinion, should have been awarded. Provision is made by legislation and agreements for the additional cost incurred by removal of subsidies to be included in the price to be paid to primary producers. The workers, on the other hand, by majority decision of the Court, are receiving only portion of the increases in cost of living due to the removal of subsidies. This, in my opinion, is an unfair way of assessing the burden due to the removal of subsidies.”