FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13101, 28 April 1908, Page 3

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

SUMMING UP SPEECHES

The Conciliation Board met at the Provincial Council Chambers yesterday to further consider matters in connection with the farm labourers' dispute. All tho members were present, Mr W. Minson, presiding. All "tho representatives of the parties were present. Mr H. D. Aeland addressed the Board on behalf, of the sheepowners. lie congratulated, tho Board, and especially the chairman, on the dignity and impartiality shown during a very lengthy enquiry; speaking for his colleagues (Messrs R. Evans and D. Joir.e.>) —and he thought he could also speak for the other eido—thoy wore all very well satisfied with th© impartiality and fairness with which the enquiry had been conducted. Their thanks were due to tho chairman. f° r ihe ability he had diown throughout. XEWSPAPER CO M M ENTS. Tho enquiry had been the subject of certain -newspaper comments, but those newspapers that had made these 'comment* had utterly and entirely misapprehended the nature of tho case and the importance of it: it did not s©em ta have dawned upon, thani that the case was not a mere'question of wages in a certain industry, and that it. was an attempt to alter the whole of the social conditions in Canterbury o'ltsxb \]vi towns. Those eonditionu bad prevailed during the past 55yours, and under them Canterbury, had been raised from a desert to its present position. Complaint had beW made with tho Board's action in visitiing different centres In the district; but that w:is the. only way in which the Beard could carry out the Court's instinictions to ascertain the wages generally paid in the several parts of the district to the several classes of workers, also their liours and conditions, aoid whether there existed .any general dissatisfaction. How was it possible for the Board to ascertain-these tbinigs unless it went to different parts, of the district? That was a complete answer to any newspaper comments made by irresponsible people" who had not taken tho trouble to read the ordeT of the Court. WAIES OF FARM WORKERS. With' regard to, the case as it affected shec-]K>wncrs, he contended that no case whatever had been proved against them, and there was no case to answer. "As to what was a fair and reasonable settlement of the dispute, as it atfected the slicepowners, he asked the Board to find that no dispute existed; but as the Board ihad to report on' wages, hours, and conditions, lie wouid deal with the evidence on those points. First, it should bo remembered that farming was. not a ''kid gloveM-cr drawing-room industry, | and they had to deal with men who worked out of doors in conditions that must necessarily be rough. As a general principle ihe contended that the wages paid all over Canterbury were tbe same. Th© money wages were not the same, but certain conditions prevailing in' different parts of the country made up for tho increased wages. The Board would have noted that wages were always higher according to the distance the worker was from the town.. The desire on tho part of I workers to get into the towns-was mot wit.li practically all over tho world; but the men who succeeded were these who had gained experience in the ! baekblocks and had there developed { the capacity to act nwn their own judgment. Married men on back filiations who had children to be educated | had t* give up high* wages and take dower w.oges in order to be near schools. The ruliiri.g rates of wageswere those orevnj.lin.sf in the more den.Wy populated parts of the district—the smaller :^va#es.—There was.fro --.industry and -no cnllin<; in New.. Zealand wit present unma.rried men were in. such an affluent condition as the o«n----cultnral and pastor*l industries. Men; could go into tho. back- country and, as the result of six mo Piths, pood, sound, healthy wi.rk. need do a hand's turn for tho rest of the year. PROBABLE"WF-FFCTS OF AN , AWARD. It would heVerv arndrwraWc for the Board'to attempt to inch* >n"a.waid : it could net-nw-ko *.v awr.vd that would be f ati-fattorv to everybody—the conditions were ro divV-wo; they Ibid nob ■ hwi.rd one'hundredth pa<rt of .tho diverse OOT*ti.ins that exited. The matter was rrA only a ouc&tion oT wa«es: an award on the cf th<> demar.'k m»..int mi award thi.i would live With the farrier, Lie down with him. and <r r t uo with him, frcrn Janii-Pirv'l-rt to" 31st every war; it' mcEvt thai 1 the farmer would lie .l'i'.n-,p-.rf;d in '"•very, of way, and that ho wen Id be iMinipercd in his V.r-iTCi Tiie rccfO". was that the f;*.'rmcr'«: livin-cr and 'liis were o*».e and theip.ime thing: tikere was no between a ■ farmer's Wiwo .-nd hi? bu!?in«-rss.' the Fnion, in drswi.n,<r wn their demands, had not iTia!!.""d" t'l? wide-spread efFeVt of an awaird wk shown by Mr Kenmedv's a<ns.vc,- (in the amrm"»t-ivc to his (Mr Aela.D.d'.s) cnies-t-ion: "Yen are really c-skinn- -to have a definition as to the coiidiitiofs. r.'d irede rvA .manner of liviiv! and work and lahrtur with renaTxl to the raid pastoral en one Kb'o 1 - of pa.per?" Th-'it wp-5 eumeiert to show that tbe Unioi.. in making th* were utterly unaware of whip* they were doing. Mr in his opening address, had reworked that "farming was :iofc to industry but many;" h«e would po further, >and assert thait agricultural and pastoral pursuits were i-p-ncititti-lly the whole of tb?- life blood ! of New Zea'and, it mnet have been a ircvrla.* ion to tbe Bc-ard. as it had br-on to bimedf, to n.cte the different nn<li , -i'Tis p"d «--vatem.s that preva.ilwl | thrtuahou't *be Tlio efFeot of : an award wciild eimply be a social revr.h:tion. .bccaaise the raise was tin at-tc-mut to turn the remuneration for wrrk dene in the conn try into eove-rci-gns a.'id thillinjrs; that was. he subni'.ttcd, nraetWally impowsible; it wa.? to good people paying it was .not 50 —it was so, and the more the de-n-ind* were studied the more apparent this became. A SCANDALOUS LAW. It bad been admitted by "Mr Thorn, at Wei mate, that the law- permitted •seven mt':?-, no matter who they were, to cite 70CO or 14.000 farmers. If that waa the law it was a very scandal*oi:b thing that seven men Mho had nothing whatever to do with the industry (should be ch-lo to do a. thing of ! tlrat kind. He thought that the Bcaid in. reporting to the Court should i cell attention to the fact that the bulk of tiie nwn who liad given, evidence, or a large rrowcrtion of them, were not people who had any stake in the country, but who were travelling all over I the place—''here to-day and gone tomorrow." Tie Board should also draw attention to tha state of the law on tho number required to constitute a trade union. Mr Kennedy had admitted (a3id he did not wieb him to take the master personally) that he had been in Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia; he had been instrumental in bringing about the dispute, and yet be might be gone in a few yoa.rs. NO BAD CONDITIONS EXISTING. They had bad, as they were bound to have certain cases where .-'.ii mishit appear that there was a., little hardY ebip—-that -was bonpd so 4»g an;s (^ii^,4ho.^Bi^^^.'^hpul<l''

cases were general or particular. It wa* a most wonderful thing, and spoke very well for tiie formers of Canterbury, and showed what class of men they were, that though the Board had been from one end of the country to the. other, not a 6ingle case had be?n produced whero men were badly treated, housed, or fed. They had had an attack made on. Mr Cameron, but the evidence showed that he supplied ample food, but that possibly it might have been a bit rough. In additk>n, x Mr Cameron employed all sorts of men, his station was practically an old men's and he was a great benefactor, but the employment of such labour wo« not really cheap; itwould be clieaper to employ a really good man and pay hint big wages,'than U employ three of the class indicated. He considered it was a great shame that an attack should have been mado on a man who employed such labour out of charity. They had it in evidence to efcow that Mr Cameron paid good wages—up to £6 per week. Mr Cameron tooh on these old men, and that was undoubtedly why he was called "Father Cameron." If Mr Cameron was not allowed to do that sort <frf thing in the future there would be a very laige increase in chaxitii-ble aid. not only in the country, but in the towns, as these people would have to W. supported by someone. Complaints as to bad fowl would be found to relate to one occasion only, and it would lie. therefore, unfair and improper to assert "that tho food was bad as a general thing. REGULATION OF FARMING. The Union's demands were an attempt to regulate the wholv of agricultural and pastoral industries, and such regulation by an independent outside Board in the town would be a very serious thing to the country. It wae true that Mr Rcnnio at Leeston had stated that "The present system was the best, but he thought that wo must have regulation," but that meant that Mr Kennie. or'his son, interxled standing for Parliament, and thought that by advocating regulation, votes might be caught. Not only did the farmers not. want regulation, but the majority of the labourers called by the . employers were against it. No Parhamejita'ty low could interfere with the j law of supply and demand and if wages j were forced up. production must be impaired. He referred to tho_ present condition of the flaxmiiling industry in support of this contention, pointing out that consequent, upon the fall in price the North Island mills which worked under an award, had closed) down, whilst those in Southland, where there was no award, were running, tho men having agreed to take lower wages. Under existing conditions, 90 per cent. , of the farmers in Canterbury bad got on tho land and it was a'dangerous thing to interfere -with these conditions. DANGERS OF INTERFERENCE. The present was a very dangerous time in New Zealand to-attempt to increase the wages of farm labourers or to regulate the industry. They were in a crisis at present—a very dangerous period in their financial pccitico. : They bad been subjected) to a largo ;■ drop in wool and apparently there'was a drop in meat and stock of aM dobcriptions. In tho Canterbury FeMinongers' dispute in 1901 the Court refm-ed to make an award, considering that it would not be justified in- doing" so in the interests of the Dominion at large; cgain< in the Thames miners' dispute (Book of Awards, Vol. 3, p. 15) the. Court declined to fix wage* on the basis of these paid by diividcnd-payjng" concerns, contending that if it did so many miners would lose their means oflivelihood!; again in the Canterbury Woollen Mills dispute (Vol. 3, p. 501) tbe Court declined to increase wages; and again in th© West Ooast gold onu. coal miners' dispute (Vol. 6, p. 30) tho Court adopted a similar view. . THE COST OF LIVING. Not'onlv had "wages been increased by 20 to'2o per cent.in the past seven !or eight years, but ihie'increased cost oi living bad fallen on tbe faimer. Ibe ! sljoepcrtmpr had to ' pay more for Ins building to accommodate his men, more.j for the-labour to feed his men; and more in other directions. A farmer who supplied his mem with mutton at 2d per lb gave diim a present of 3d for every lb he supplied at tho price mentioned. It was asked by the. Union representatives if it was fair that a I man should get 20s from one employer whilst another had- given him 255; but.the answer 'was that-the man, who paid the lower rate «only wanted that amount of labour. In the Truck Act, passed by Mr Seddon's Government, it had been recognised by, the legislature tbat agricultural and pastoral pursuits could not bo carried on without' permitting payment, in. kind. An award would practically nullity that Act, as it wo.rld diave the effect of making tbe remuneration to the country workers take'the shape of money. He questioned if an award could bo applied to work done oh tb© snares principle, such as milking on shares, ais in the North Island; or to farm labourers who "did various kinds of work, or to the clas3 of learners that the farmer bad to teach. THE CONTRACT SYSTEM. The Union's contention that contract work had the effect of lowering wages had been, he argued, 'disproved. The reason why that; system had prevailed was that it was the only practical way of dealing with a great many jobs. As a -matter of fact, it was more expensive than day labour ;\ but under it the men'required no supervision; furthermore, it suited the men to work uuder it; indeed, many men had struck, in order to get the contract system; He referred to Mr Justice Sim's remarks in connection with tb© dairymen's award "(Labour Journal," September 12th, 1907, p. 1121). The Union asked tbat work let by contract sliould'be paid for, at a rate not less than tho minimum wage. Whilst agreeing that such should be the case where the contractor employed outside workers, his Honour held that where the contractor did tho work himself, the Court could only regulate his remuneration, and such a contractor was outside any award the Court could make. He (Mr Aeland) contended that his Honour bad thus decided that tho Court had no power to prohibit contract. EVIDENCE REGARDING SHEEP WORK.

Mr Aeland then proceeded to comment on the evidence given affecting the sheep-owners, and pointed out that it was only -when the Board reached Waimate that the Union produced two witnesses who were actually working on Bheep stations, though others were subsequently called. The Union had not called one genuine shepherd, whilst all the shepherds called by the employers had been opposed to fixed conditions. After dealing exhaustively with tho wages paid and privileges given to shepherds, he said that apparently they were included in tho demands to make a sort of "general limit," and not because there was. any dissatisfaction with existing conditions. The best evidence of this was in the demands where 35s per week was asked for casual shepherds, whereas evidence had been given showing that at present the wages paid shepherds at lambing* time were £2 per week. He had commenced to analyse the evidence regarding musterers, when the Board, at 4 p.m., adjourned till 10.30 a.m. today. •