FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13097, 23 April 1908, Page 4

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

—♦ V CONCILIATION BOARD PROCEEDINGS.

The Conciliation Board resumed tlw hcarin." , of the ©vklonee in tlie farm i:;ho:ir.M-.s' dispute at the Provincial Council CliaTTsbere "f*=torcbv Pr'v.sput—Messrs W. Mmsoa tcliairman), G. Sheat, R. 11. 11-usbridge, It. U. Wkiting and H. Broadhcad. Mα , K-enn«?dy cross-examined H; H. loiland who garo his evidence in •hief on tho 13th irtst. Witncse stat:tl that ho paid has teamster 27s 6d ;>pr week: that would be a ruinous rate if the man tvas not a good one; it would pay him to dispense with cue of his man during wet wea,her if he ould rel- upon being able -.- -viirn him when ho wanted him. llio folloivirg rebutting ovideuco -.vas called by -Mr Jones: — Li. A. IVI. Atacdonuid, general farmer, 3:r.ri, stated that he fanned about 2000 acres and employed Win. Seward. who gave evidence in Geraldine to the effect that ho had never worked on contract himself, and. liad done no contract work. V\ itness stated that these statements were, not correct; Seward, at the time he gave evidence, was contracting on witness's farm. Witness also rebutted tho statement made at Geraldino by'Jamra ITfirlrrson. vrb* Uai alleged that Mr Macdonald had stopped letting contracts when ho found that the amount earned was lower than labour rates. Witness stated that he was constantly letting contracts. To Mr Thorn: His head ploughman made, the conditions under which harvesting contracting was done. Witness did not know whether or not tho contract for stooking that Seward liad taken iv day or two before he gave his evidence was the first one ho had taken. Witness eworo that it was untrue that ho had said to Henderson that he (witness) would not give out any more contracts. Mr Thorn then cross-examined E. Somervillo, Southbridge, who was examined on the 16th inst. Mr Acland called Edward B. Millton, shepp farmer, Birch Hill, Rangiora, who stated that ho farmed 20,1)00 acres, and at present was president of the Canterbury Sheepowners' Association. In the '80's musterers wero paid from 20s per week to 40s—the last-mentioned rate being for tho very best men obtainable; since then wages had steadily increased, , both directly a.nd indinoctily. The food tsupplied musterers consisted of bread, mutton, butter, potatoes, onions and brownie; in his ycung days butter was supplied only on tlio fiat country; now it was supplied qu country from 3000 to 4000 feet in altitude; when ho started mustering ono pack horse was sufficient to carry tho stores, etc., for seven men; now two pack horses were necessary for the earao number of men. Tie cost of station management had increased as tho result of higher wages, hotter accommodation and improved food. Up paid his head shepherd £80 per annum and found. 11/ialrilitiesconnected with stations had also been incFOßßed by tho operation of the Compensation for Accidents Act. When a worker on a station became ill it was customary for him to bo nursed on tho station,' and' tlie general practice was for the station owner to pay all tlw expenses. For three years, 1904-o-G, his teams had been unable to work, on account of wet weather, an average of 49 days in each year; if the Saturday half-holiday were granted it would raise the averago to 75 per annum. If the Union's demands wore granted, he imagined that _ there would bo no cadets on farms; if the ciass known as cadets. were not taken on farms there would be a probability of depriving the employers ranks of many men, «an.d that would be detrimental to the workers themselves. • Is it possible to conduct a sheep station under regulations?—lt is a very d-ebata'ble question, and ifc is not very easy to conceive, how it enn be dono. I am not prepared to express a strong opinion about it, but I will say this: If one tries to work by regulation and routine on a station, one finds that it breaks down.after a very brief period. If wo tried to work under regulations it wouid hare a detrimental effect upon production.. J. D. Blakemore/ fanner, Springsten, stated he farmed about 800 acres and had' started as a worker 33 years ago. He considered that the contract system was the'■ working ■ man's stepping stone; ho could not remennber having d<?ne contract work for rrny man, who had not paid him more than he engage! witness for. To Mr Kennedy: Ho had always made wages at contract; on ono occasion the manager of the estate he was working on told him that he was making a job of th& ploughing and would l>3 paid , 6d per acre extra; other employers had treated' him sinii-1-arly. John Pettigrew, farmer, Pigeon Bay, stated that he farmed 153 acres, and that so far as ho knew there was no dissatisfaction amongst tho farm labourers in the Bays; he knew of no branches or the Union in his district. The abolition of the contract system would affect tho cocksfoot industry. Messrs Thorn and Kennedy crossexamined regarding t!he contract system in connection with tlio cocksfoot indiustry. At 4.45 p.m. tho Board adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.