FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13104, 1 May 1908, Page 3

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

THE SUMMING-UP SPEECHES

At the Supremo Court yesterday proceedings in the farm labourers' dispute before the Conciliation Board were resumed. All the members of the Board wero present, Mr W. Minson presiding. Mr l>. Jones resumed summing tip on behalf of the farmers, and continued his analysis of the evidence givon as to the existence of dissatisfaction. DISSATISFACTION NOT PROVED. to the- evidence given at Waimateon behalf of the Union, b<? said that only three of the witnesses called were actually farm workers, and one was a man -30 years of ago and the other two were Australians, -who had been respectively three and two years in the Dominion. One of the points they wero endeavouring to show vss that they were not dealing with the men. in the industry, and this was supported by the fact that in .South Canterbury the Union had to Liing men who were not in the industry to attempt to prove dissatisfaction ; this was a most unsatisfactory methrd: it thero was dissatisfaction in any industry tho men employed in the industry were only too eager to go before. t!;e Board and prove it. The witnesses called by the farmers had asserted that no dissatisfaction existed. When in two largo districts—Timuru and Waimato—the evidence of the workers and the farmers stated emphatically tfiat no dissatisfaction existed, it must bo conclusive* testimony on tic point. In the Culverden district, covering 100 miles by HQ miles, the Union had brought no witnesses who had said a single word about diss-itis-faction. At Waikari not a tittle ot evidence had been given regarding dissatisfaction with conditions, though tin? Union's witnesses stated that men wore dissatisfied with tho wages; on the other hand tho witnesses called by the farmers expressed themselves satisfi<>:l with conditions and wages. For instance, William Russell, employed on Mr It. Evans's farm—tho largest agricultural farm in North Canterbury, where there were six permanent mt*n kept and 2.j were employed at harvest —had stated that he had discussed the Union's demands with thesei men and tli-ey 'had considered tho wagfs demanded were too high, and had disapproved of the demands as a whole. At Cheviot tho Union's witnesses had given no evidence that dissatisfaction existed.

Regarding "the statement made by a witness'-at Rangiora that he believed in giving preference to unionists, oven if a man was of unclean, life, Mr Janes said that in his mind .that meant preference to immorality. He devoted considerable time to t.h© evidence of Win. Dickie, and said that hie extraordinary statements, especially those that a man stooking with him kept two yards in front of him to make the puce, and that on oruo of Mr Evans's farms potato sacks as big as wool packs wero used, showed, th© worthlessness ox Dickie's testimony. The witnesses for the farmers at Rangiora had asserted that no general dissatisfaction existed either in the Ranciora, Amberley, Cust or Kaiapoi districts. Mr Evans, in his evidence, had stated that if there was any general dissatisfaction it had been, kindilcd by tihc_ men in the townships—men who put in their time at work more congenial to them tthan farm work. More- than one witness had stated that he had heard of no dissatisfaction except in ] the case of the witness 11. BoreUuid. I Regarding the Dar field district, which represented a large part of the territory to which the enquiry applied, Mr Jon.fts pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence before the Board regarding dissatisfaction: whilst the evidence' called by the farmers showed th.a.t r with the exception of. - individual cases where men it-anted more pay, the workers were gomeraiUy satisfied. PRESENT CONDITIONS SATISFACTORY. After dealing very comprehensively with tho evidence, Mr Jouaa &aid tha.t he thought that tho farmers .had proved very conclusively that there was no dissatisfaction at all. Iv a largo number of districts they 'had no representatives whatever who spoke on l>ehalf of tho Union; but practically every district in Canterbury had been covered by the farmers' witnesses. Scarcely had any two witnesses been, called by them from one place, and all had stated m«E emphatically that no dissatisfaction existed, and that the present system was working with great satisfaction to ail. He then quoted copiously from the evidence of farm workers called by the farmers to show that tie-re had been an unanimous request on their part tha.t present conditions should Ik> allowed to roma.m. The witness Hands had ea-ul that he wavN perfectly satisfied with hi 3 pcsitio>n,. did not believe in. any persons preventing hi,m making his living by contract work, and wished for joo interference; Mowa-t. a farmer's &on, had said that the farm labourer had Hs own free will and could pleese himself what work he took; Birrell, another worker, thought that the Union was working α-jsainst his interest in attempting to fix hours and wages; omcl many others in. the different districts had given testimenv to similar effect . , ' NO ALTERATION WANTED. Not only did no dissatisfaction exist. Mr Jones continued, but the extracts from the evidence that he had just read showed that a largo majority of the farm workers themselves were against any alteration of existing eondkic-ns; these extracts a!ro bore cut liis statement that the Union did not represent the genuine farm workers; in no case- ever heard by the Board had there been such a determined fight by tho men themselves for their freedom. Ho was satisfied that the Board would give every consideration to the testimony of good, permanent, reliable men from every part of Canterbury, who emphatically stated that the conditions under which they laboured were working harmoniously, and that they desired those conditions to remain. ' AN APPOSITE COMPARISON. Reverting to his statement that the Union was a close corporation, Mr Jones quoted the Union's third rule as follows:—"Any worker desiring to join the Union may"—ho desired tho Board u> note the word "may",—'do so by applying to any officer, agent, or member of the Union authorised to enrol members." He contended that this made the Union a close corporation; there was nothing in that rule that forced the Union to take any man who came along who was a farm labourer, and it lay with the executive of the Union to say whether or not applicants should bo admitted. They had had evidence before the Board—and the Union had not attempted to deny it— that the Union were not .prepared to admit those who were hostile to them. The previous day an election was held ior the position of Mayor of Christchurch". If the candidate who proved unsuccessful had been able to keep out of the polling booths all those who intended voting for his opponent, he (the unsuccessful candidate) would have boon elected; but it would not have been .by the will of tie people. The so-called Farm labodrers' Union, by admitting only those members who wero T.-iendly to the demands, gave no opportunity to farm labourers who disapproved of them to express thedr opinions. The Board -would harve noted that the. Union's demands-had not been.

discussed at the general meetmgsxrf the Union, and that the members had very little cognisance of them. Tho Union had used the rule he had quoted to exclude men who were prepared to join, and when that fact was recognised, one immediately saw that there was bound to be unanimity of opinion, seeing that objection was taken to anyone holding contrary opinions being admitted to membership. Any dissatisfaction that existed had been engendered by such remarks as those of Mr Kennedy, to which he had. already referred, and if the Board was satisfied that no dissatisfaction existed, he was sure they .would not force an award on people who, by their evidence, had emphatically voted against it. THE CONTRACT SYSTEM.

It might be naturally asked why the Union desired to abolish the contract system. In their first demands (a copy of which he handed in) no demand was made for the abolition of that system. Mr Ell, when he was in South Canterbury endeavouring to organise the farm labourers, was asked about the abolition of contract. ■ Mr Thorn asked if this matter could be put in; he had not much objection, but wanted the point cleared up whether a party before the Board could quote from matter that was not beforo tho Board in evidence. The Chairman was inclined to think that Mr Jones could not quote anything that was not in evidence. Mr Jones pointed out that Mr Acland, a day or so previously, had quoted from Mr Reeves's book on -.Statt- experiments in Australia and New Zealand." . Mr Thorn pointed out that the chairman had declined to allow Mr Wilfred Hall to quote the letter written by him (Hr Thorn) to tho "New Zealand Timos" when he was giving evidence. Mr Adand pointed out that quotations were not evidence, and counsel, when summing up, could quote,what ho liked. Mr Jones, continuing, said that Mr Ell had explained that the domands regarding contract were to prevent men undertaking contract work with their employers' teams. Mr Keano. ot Pleasant Point, had given a similar explanation. Consequently, he argued, tho Union had been formed in South Canterbury on facts that wore not correct. A PRINCIPLE OF UNIONISM. One of the Union's witnesses (Mj Hales, of Prebbleton) had answered in the affirmative tho question : "The■ objection voii have to contract is that it conflicts with the principles ot Unionism?" It appeared, therefore, that tho abolition of contract was aslced for because it was a principle of Unionism; but he took it that the Board was not there to uphold Unionism, or to attempt to break it. down, but to administer justice. If the abolition of contract was asked for only on the ground that it was a principle of Unionism, then the matter required to bo carefully looked into. A OF LIBERTY. Tho demand for. tho abolition of contract wae a demand for the curtailment of liberty. The Umon W£f£ lv wanted the mass of the workers to place themselvw in +h? Wβ of the executive and lose Uieir individuality raid create a labour trust. Tho evidence proved ccmclnsrwly that contract work w«s -the work that tho "»«n«T tk-bi-Iv β-kraiye cave io men when it was work of a profitable kind to the farmer. The Bmrd Jifld 1««~- « great deal about tho .tendency o* «» contract system, to reduce wa-gres, but the evidence- proved the contrary, Jji© Board was *iVre to deal with facts, and not witJi tendencies; jn a.ny case allegations as to the. tendency cf a system which had been in euccererful operation in Canterbury for over fifty y«*3irs wore not very vaJuaMe airgaTTiewte.

CONTRACT ANTD THE MI-N3MUM , WAGE. The reason why the- Union, desired the of the oonitiaeb system ir.n e -.fc be that if that system -were allowed, the. minimum wage became an absurdity. The farmer was m the position of being able, to lot any Work on his fa.rm by contract, *uid *h© Boaixl had to few» that fact. They be-llieved, fnrtJier, that neither the Board nor the Court had .power to tamper wutih the oomtrac* system, but tha.t ■was a point that could ho ddiscusscd an tn© Courts later. . i\tr BroadJwad: You question wfteth€T it has t!i© power to aboldsh the system , . Mr Jones: I roaiutann thnt rtto contract system is there, by statute laro*, and the Board has 110 power to abolish it. M*r Juetitw Siim; as quwt<xl by 3lr Aolaiid, hns laid it down thnt tho Arbitration en 11 not aibot!is-h contract bctwoe.n maji and majiThe Chairnmn: Of courepi the Board is that it is not wntJiiin its fiiaio+>ions to Tnalie β-n ia.T\-ra.rd on tihas que»ti/On. but you -will admit A'at it <]& qu.ite wmpeitent for tlie Boa.rd, under the order of reference,, to a recommendation on tibe aiibject? Mr Jones: Oh, yes; 1 was j«sfc stating that we contended that theCourt has no power to deal wi'tih the contract syst-eira. Jlr Jomes them tiroceedcd to aunilyse tbo evidemco of Union witn<?s>e® on t-hf subject, a.rd eaiid -that that erodence was not of a very e-mphatio One- witjjees, for instance, had stated, when aelced if ho earned more at dag work, that he kn«w a* tho emd of tho day exactly how muoh h© had earned, nnd ho could net fell under'conitract; that wiie tihe simple >reaean Vhy he preferred tiir. ■h'ouT eystcim. That was a rom'a.rkaiWe. cc<n<ti7med Mr Jonjcs. and -h© added that very libtlo prosrrce,. would, be made if the farmer ad'op'tad the eaime .idea; ibo was eaitdsfied that the opim.ion. expressed by the witness ehowed that h© was » mam who was suffering from unhealthy discontent.

At this juncture tho Board adjonmied till 10.30 a.m. to-day.