FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13108, 6 May 1908, Page 5

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

SUMMING UP SPEECHES.

The farm labourers' dispute was bofore the Conciliation Board again yeeterday, when Mr D. Jones, employers representative, continued his eumming up speech. Mr Jones, referring to Redfeme evidence given at Rangiora on the profits to be derived from the dairy ir.-dustry, said that Redfera had stated that although he started with no capital, he <had cleared himself in live short space of twelve months. 3lx Redfern, however, was utterly at sea concerning his figures. His total expenditure worked out *t £176 12s 2d, while hie cash receipts totalled only £104 Os 7d, showing a loss of £72 11s "d, which, after allowing for the £12 ho had wlien he started:, left him £60 in debt. Nothing was allowed for the cost of doiry utensils and for his living expenses. Mr Redfern's evidence, therefore, ooukl not be taken to bo reliable in support of the proposition that he had cleared himself _ in. the twelve months, and that milking was !i profitable industry. The Dairymen s Award in Christchurch made no provision for holidays at all, and the condition of the c.siiryinen in the couniry wfls in finitely better tlian the condition of the dairymen in the city. \V xth tiio dairymen any increase in wages or in- the cost of production could be passe-d on to the consumer when aid. were bound by the same conxkUous. The question of dairying could have been dealt with more fully had it been necessary. The dairying mdiistry in New Zealand, however, was in a very critical condition, awing to the. labour difficulty, but it was expected that the introduction of mechaaucal niiikina apparatus woukl partly remove that difficulty. The Government officials considered that milking machines would largely replace the hand) milking, and would, to a large extent remove the drudgeTy connected with dairying. The dairy industry was in a transitory state, and it was very inadvisable to-interfere with the conditions connected with that industry while it was in that critical state. An opinion had grown up in the towns that the hours worked in the coiuiitry were unduly long, but the enquiry had shown that tho hours worked in the country were no longer than these. worked in the towns by the average labourer who had to travel to and from his work, at his own expense, whereas the country labourers were provided with horses. Further, the countryman dad not lose time on account of wet weather, and his condition generally wes better than that of the towyi labourer. Mr Justice Sim had. laid it down tl«tt a dissatisfied Union would have to show that the system of work in. force was unreasonable, and the Farm Labourers Umion had not shown that. White vi South Canterbury, Mr H. G. Ell, M.P., had: said that tine demands of • the Union, as .they had been oircutated in print, could not all be acceded to. Farm work could , not be governed by fixed rules as to hours, for instance, and it would bo. impossible to give ali hands on a form a half-holiday on Saturdays. The Hon. J. Barr said that the question of hours had given rise to a deal of discussion:, but eight hours a day did wot necessarily mean that a man had to start at 8 and leave off at 5. There were certain houis. when the horses would Iμ? feeding in the middle of the day. Then, again, if through wet weather* the men wero idle for perhaps n week, it woukl not be right if every .-idvantage wore mot taken oi tho fine weather by perhaps jnafcimg longer hours. Continuing, Mr' Jones mi.i that no demand.had come from the Union in support of the fixing of hours for labourers, and tho Union witnesses themselves had said that the present give-and-take system was satisfactory, and that ifc would not be possible with any convenience to adopt a fixed hour system. One witness had said that the dispute between his employer and himself was that ho thought his employer could afford to pay him more wages. Another man had si id he thought the existing system was just as good as the one proposed, but ho would stick to the Union. The Union witnesses saia that tney did not desire fixed hours, and no evidence was given that tho present system was a bad one., The fixed bour system would be utterly unworkable, for so much depended oh the weather that the hours could only bo fixed if the,weather conditions coukl be regulated also. If the present system were to be altered it would strike at tho very root of production, and would be suicidal not only to the farmer, but aba to the whole communtity It was an impossibility to regulate t»r» hours on a farm with outdoor work when the farmer was at the mercy or the weather. The farmer must do his work when Naturo permit tod, and there must be that sympathetic feeling between tho master and , man which would enable them to work together. The ■ntr.ceent eye-torn had " been ■in nrie in Canterbury ever since farming began, and the fact that the Union had not been ablo to prove instances where it had worked an injustice to tho men showed that to begin fo experiment with a system such as that would bo to do something which he felt, sure the Board would not do. Mr Jones then proceeded to quote from the evidence given on behalf of the employers in answer to the fixed hours demand. The 'framers of that demand, ho said, could not have known of the conditions prevailing on a farm as related by the witnesses, or they would not have been foolish enough to have put in such a demand. For the fanner to' be tied down to fixed hours would be disastrous to tho whole community, and it would bring about a state of things which the country could' not stand financially. The Union did not represent thi> agricultural worker. Their own witnesses had gono against them on that evidence, and" emphatically said that the present system had not caused any injustice. It simply proved again that the Union had set out with a schedule of conditions manufactured by someone who had not been able to take into consideration all the varying kinds of work done on a farm, and tho evidence through tho whole enquiry j/roved that the conditions had not been discussed T»y the f-.irm labourers, that tho Union representatives did not represent the agricultural worker, and that m fact as far as he could see the demands seemed to represent the views of the two persons who were leading the enquiry for the workers and nol>ody eke. The evident* seemed to bo overwhelming in favour of the present give-and-ta.ke system in operation now. It proved that tliere must be sympathy between the farm worker and the farmer, and that there was that sympathy the enquiry had shown, and without it it would be impossible for the farmer to carry on his work. The next point touched on by Mr Jones was that relating to the demand for a Saturday half-holiday. The speaker reviewed the evidence given in support of fh-ifc demand, and eaid tihat the , .witnesses called by the Union, with the exception oT ahout three did not approve of the Satirrdny halfholiday. One Union witness had said that he did not see the half-holiday would ho of much (benefit to farm la-bourere, and ai.cther that he did not think it would--be workable for teamsters. Out of all the ploughmen the Union hail-called about four had ex--praised t&emselvee in .favour of the

■Saturday: half-holiday. Some had mo opinion," and a number considered that the holiday was not required. On tho evidence of the- Union alone the,Satu«v day lnlf-holiday deniaaid fell ito tihe ground, 'Mr Jones then quoted extracts from the evidence given by t-he farmers to the efleet -rt'hat the Saturday half-holiday proposal was neither woYkable .nor desirable. The farm labourers, he contended, \had never asked 'for the Saturday JbaJf-holiday. The request hid been made only jby their supposed representatives. Wiitih. regard to the casual day labourer, the holiday question was not on© on which he could give an expression of opinion, for he asked for Iβ an ihour, and could have as many holidays ac Jhe liked to take. It wis impossible, however, to fix a rule'that •work should etop at a given time. The contractors were working .on their own aocounifc never took a Saturday' (half-holiday, neither did the day labourers, and thai nrcved tihat "they were satisfied with tiie present system, and. preferred to alike holidays when it suited them.. If there was a genuine desire for tho holiday some arrangement could be made for a half-holiday to be granted in a-«rood many ea£<"S, but to lay down a hard and fact rule for the whole of the yr-jr would, he submitted, be an impossibility. Mr Jones then referred io the .imrtoeeiibility of working the limirs the l'nion deminded, and quoted tho evident given on the point by Mr Twentyiinan. He also quoted the remarks made by Mr Justice Chapman in the- West 1 Coasit coal-mining dispute in in -which he said tsi© Judge 7nadf» tb« point that a large number of the workers affected had not been consulted in connection with i'le j>rop»>3<?d re-arrangement of hours, and no award v.'is .made. If any arrangement ac to liours and iholidays such as was proposed "were adopted the wholo work of tho fiarm would bo 'lisorganised. If t<he .demands as to liours were grareted tihe- wages of the r-ne>unl labourers wor.ld fall to 33s or 34s per ■ ~ \efk k l ior 3ie -would only be ible. to work for a certain number of hours weeidy. D:scuss.mg the question r.B 1o the. lose to tiie country in pro•incT.ion through the- granting of tho half-holiday and t'he extra half-hour daily, IMr Jones quoted itlie estdmaift give>n by Mr Dobecm that "the granting of the requests mean that for every team 40 acres of lamd would -bo thrown out of cultivation, in addition to a. lose, of £35 in wages, arid the crop would be.lost-. too. There would be a lostj in production of 13 pe-r cent., and that would make a great difference to the country. It would be an impossible burden to piece on <tfie farmers, and tpouW be djsaetrous to tho com-

munity and to tho coun.fcry to have co much loss of time involved in the Union's demands . , ;; The Cliairman the decreise of 13 per cent, in production .would not moan tliait the exports of-tihe country would bo decreased by 13 iper. oent.. '' ■ '- % '■';■ , . ''■ v■■ ....;. .'. .:■ '". At this stage the BoaTd tih«n adjourned until ha!f-pnst 10 this morn■ing.' '■' ' -'•■■' ■■v x •■ ; .' '■">■■■•, ■ ■ ... .•