Court Refuses Interim Order Of £2 A Week

Wanganui Chronicle, 20 December 1950, Page 7

Court Refuses Interim Order Of £2 A Week

WELLINGTON, Yesterday (PAI.— On the grounds that the hearing of the present applications had not been completed. Judge Tyndall, in the Arbitration Court today did not act on a request by the Trade Union Congress that the Court on it/ own motion should make an interim order and grant £2 a week to wage earners. The T.U.C. move was made when the question o£ the Court's adjournment, to allow the employers time to consider their case, was raised. Mr. T. G. Potter, for the congress, said the granting of an interim order would give his Honour time to consider the voluminous evidence and would do much to overcome the present wave of industrial unrest. Mr. Potter said that with all sections of the community, including the law society, demanding wage increases, and in view of the magnitude of the present wave of industrial unrest, the congress considered that urgency was the keynote to the present applications. It was respectfully suggested that the court would be performing a service that would be welcomed by all if at this stage it announced, of its own motion, a further interim order granting £2 a week. While there was every justification for an adjournment to allow the employers time to reply, said Mr. Potter he observed that the railwaymen looked like getting something and while he would suggest £2 a week, the wage-earners would not be offended with 355. The judge said that if an interim order was granted it would result from this application and the court could not make two orders on the application. “There will be no dragging on with the court,” added his Honour, when Mr. Potter said that the hearing was going to take a long time and drag on. Mr. Potter said he was not suggesting that the court would drag on the hearing, but court had a healthy file of evidence which it could sift now. The judge said that if Mr. Potter s attitude was conditioned by his suggestion, then he would say that the suggestion would not be in the interests of the workers. If the court made another interim order, it would be debarred from making another for 12 months. It would reduce the whole hearing to a farce and the parties would not get a decision for 12 months. Mr. Potter: If the applicants finish their case, the court could, if it so desired, make an order on its own motion. His Honour: It could, but the applications are not heard. Mr. Potter opposed an adjournment to January 4. The court then proceeded to hear argument on the question of an adjournment. The judge stated that the cour.t would take its customary vacation and would hot resume until February 1 unless the parties taking part in the hearing of the two applications for a general wage order could reach agreement on a date on which the employers should present their case. STALEMATE He had suggested that the court should sit on Boxing Day and right through to the New Y r ear, but after nearly an hour and a-halfs discussion, including an adjournment by the court to consider the matter, a stalemate was reached. Finally the judge suggested that the parties should confer during the lunch hour, with a view to reaching a decision. Earlier. Mr. W. E. Anderson, for the employers, had requested that the court should adjourn when the applicants’ case was completed (probably today or tomorrow) until January 4 to allow the employers time to prepare their case. Mr. F. P. Walsh, for the Federation of Labour, said it was desirable that the case should be finalised, because the court had no power to make retrospective payments. He agreed that Mr. Anderson had justification in asking time for a reply and to do justice to his case, and said he (Mr. Walsh) could not offer just grounds for an objection to the adjournment. The judge, in suggesting that the court should adjourn from tomorrow u’ntil Boxing Day to meet the employers' position, said that the court, at great inconvenience to itself, had endeavoured to meet the applicants, but it had been shown little consideration. The court had made its arrangements to Christmas and that work had still to be done, he said. He added it had been made clear that if the case were started it would go on and be finished. The court was not to be trifled with. It would appear now that the object of starting early would be lost. Mr. H. F. Butland, for the employers, said he considered the request for an adjournment until January 4 was reasonable. The judge: I suggest we resume the case on February 1. Everybody is asking for time. I shall give them time.. The present application was a very important case, for it was not just a cost-of-living case, but concerned the re-distribution of the national income, said Dr. Harold Silverstone, lecturer in mathematics and statistics at the University of Otago, in evidence. Dr. Silverstone said he could not recall an economic system which had collapsed because of raising the standards of living—it had usually been for the reverse reason. From an economic viewpoint, it would be better to give the £45 million wool cheque to the 300,000 to 400,000 wage-earners than the 30,000 to 40,000 wool growers, said witness.