THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13006, 7 January 1908, Page 8

THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

CONCILIATION BOARD AT GERALDINE.

The Conciliation Board, which adjourned its enquiry into the farm labourers' dispute for the Christmas holidays, resumed its sittings at Gcraldinc yesterday, all the members of tho Board and tie representatives of the parties interested being present. .Mt Thorn first called, Jamas Henderson, farm labourer at Orari, who said that he was principally engaged at draining, for which, he was paid 7s per day, and 6s per day for ordinary day labour. Ho was certainly not satisfied with 6s a day for ordinary day labour, and considered that 7p 6d would be a fair wage t« ask. The demands of the Labourers' Union for 8k a day for draining and 7,« 6d for ordinary labour were fair; and the Saturday half-holiday would, also bo a very good thing. He did not see why farm labourers should not bo givon a half-lioliday on which to play cricket, tennis, etc.. or to dig in their gardens, the sanio as town workers got. To work in the harvest field from 7 to 7 was quite long enough for any man. and overtime, .should most certainly Iμ- paid for as demanded by tlse Lnion. Witness's employer was one of the. best employers in the country. Witness did not believe in contract work, as it simply meant putting one mans brains against those, of another. It contract work were abolished, there would not be a tendency for men to loaf on their employers. "Witness believed in preference to unionists. Last year he earned £103, and he found It impossible to save any of it. Ho had a wife and one child to keep. To Mr Kennedy: The highest wages witness had earned on a threshing mill wero £3 a week, and the lowest, a fraction over £2 a, week. Sometimes a. lot of time wns lost through the threshing mill getting bogged, and ho considered that all time a man spent "with tho mill should bo paid for, whether tb»'. -H-heols were going or not. The mill hands should be paid for shifting the mill from stack to stack. A fair wage to ask would, bo Is 3d an, hour for mill work. To Mr Jones: Tho odd days on which Tcitnoss only earned 6s -would only amount to about a fortnight in twelve months. A'farmer could always "beat" a man who hoed turnips for him, by making him go over tho field: a second l time after he had got through it once, on the ground that the crop was not properly "thinned, because there were a few weeds left. No turnip hoer could make Ss a day at the present rate of wages if he thinned out the crop properly and cut the we«fc out carefully. Mt Jones pressed the witness to supply the names of turnip-hoere who, he said, were only earning 3s and 4e a day at turnip hoeing, but he saJtl he couldnot remember the names. Mr Jonee questioned tho witness aa to what ho thought of tho amended demands of the Union, by which it was claimed that all hands should be paid a minimum wage of £2 15s per week during tho months of January andi February (harvest time), whether such hands were employed at harvest work or not. Witness said he had heard nothing of such a demand, and several members of the Board said that Mr Jones should not have asked tho question, as it wae not before the Board. Mr Acland said it was; and it meant that employers who owned property on, which there was no harvest, would be required to pay their cowboy £2 15s during tho nfonths of January and February. Mr Thorn said yes, that was tho position. Mr Jones again asked the witness what ho thought of paying coVboye £2 los a week for two months of the year, but witness said ho knew nothing about it. Continuing his evidence concerning threshing, witness said he did not believe in the hour eystem, as he had .worked under it on a certain mill for from 14 to 1(3 hours a day, and earned less than 8s per day. Mr Jones said he would call the owner of the mill to disprove this. Continuing, witness said that all th<* labouring men in the Orari district were, to the best of his belief, member* of tho Union. Witness had been told that an Orari farmer had saefked one of his men because he had joined the* Union. Witness said he could not prove it, but "had a terrible big idea," that other bosses would do likewise if preference were not given to unionists. To Mr Acland: Witness's employer had ceased letting w"ork by contract, giving as Mβ reason that he desired to sco his men all get a fair day's wages. On one occasion witness had taken a oontract from him which did not pay, but his employer "made it up" to him. paying him 8s a day for the whole trim* ho was on the job. This employer had not found that under the oontract system the men were doing too well out of him. To Mr Broadhead: Living had' go* dearer, other employers nad increased the wages they paid, and farm labourers were ipqually entitled to a rise Witness had heard a lot of complaining among farm labourers, on account or their low wages. William Seaward, day labourer, employed at Orari by the same employer, gave evidence corroborating in the main the evidence given by the last witness. To Mr Jones: Witness was a single man. and he earned £100 last year. He did not belieye in the contract system, as a farmer would not let a contract under which the contractors would be likely to make more than if they wero working by the day. A long discussion hero took place concerning the contract system, Mr Jones contending that this system tended to higher wages, while the witness considered that it had an opposite effect. Witness admitted that in his employment bo had boon treated most fairly.* He had been in tho Dominion for icn years, and had worked on only two farms during that time. To Mr Acland: It would l*> a fair thine; for men driving a team all the year round to be paid £2 loe a week during harvest time, the extra money being in tho nature l of a bonue. Mr Aelard asked why should not every clerk in an office, claim the same thing: it, would be just aa reasonable. Witness said he would limit the bonus to agricultural men, and Mr Acland wanted to know why. Witness: Because this is an agricultural labourers' dispute. Continuing, witness said some men who worked teams on tho farm were not able to get away to take part in the harvest. It was only right that they should get a bonus, and the £2 15s a week for January and February would give them a bonus. It would be in the farmer's own interest to give his men this extra money, as it would ensure the men stopping at their employment instead of leaving to seek harvest work, at which they could make better money. To Mr Sheat: The conditions under which farm labourers worked in England and New Zealand could not be compared. Witness came from Somerset, and he did not know- why he had been called to eive evidence before the Board; perhaps Mr Thorn could explain. At this stage the Court adjourned for tho day. To-day the Board will sit from 9.30 until 12.30, when they will adjourn to visit Mr Triop's station at Orari Gorge, there to see tho conditions iiu-

ler which the station hands arc working and living. The Board purpose sitting at Geraliine until the ena of the present week, md on Monday next they will go to Wai mate to sit" there for a week, after vhich they will adjourn for five weeks for harvest.