CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13159, 4 July 1908, Page 3

CHRISTCHURCH SITTINGS.

The sittings of the Arbitration Court were resumed at the Provincial Council Chambers yesterday morning. SHEARERS' DISPUTE. Representatives of the parties in this dispute addressed the Court. Mr Scott, for the employers, dealt with the two matters that, he said, constituted the crux of tho dispute— tho Union's demands tor higher rates, and for tho control of the work. Regarding average earnings the employers were prepared to rest their case on the returns put in by the Sheepowners' Onion, and the Court would find on examining those returns that the workers had considerably under-estimated their earnings. There was no doubt that shearing was the most profitable work that shearers could do, and the conditions in New Zealand must be very good when so many Australian shearers were attracted to the Dominion. He argued that the evidence of the employers' witnesses had disposed of the Union's contention that New Zealand sheep were heavier and carried more wool than was the case sixteen years ago; the decrease in the number of merinos and tho increase in tho long wools made bigger tallies possible. As to rates higher than those in the award being paid by farmers, he said that ho had been astonished to find that nothing higher than 20s per 100 was paid; in Otago farraera had to pay 22s 66, 2os, and even higher. On account of legislation and the fact that men would not go back to stations where food and accommodation were unsatisfactory, there had been a great improvement in these .As to tho intention of the Union to set absolute control of thn worl: from start to finish, he did not think, for one moment, that tlio Court would allow that, lie concurred with tho suggestion of tho President that the provision in the Australian award regarding wet shcr>p would l» a reasonable solution of the dinieulty—no shearer to be compelled to shear sheep that he has reasonable cause to consider wet. Tho only difficulty likely to arise was on ing to the fact that'one or two men usually led in those mat-, ters, and made it uncomfortable for those who did not with them. The President said* that sort of thins could not be prevented by any means. Mr Darcy, for the Union, said that tho witnesses for the employers had failed to substantiate their case, but had actually backed «n tho evidence of the Union's witnesses? Mr Scott had said that the agreement of 1906 was based on conditions that had been rulinr; for 40 years: in that statement, Mr Darcy continued, was to be found tho reason for the dispute: shearing was the only occupation of which it could bo said that wages and conditions had remained unchanged for 40 years; whilst wages in other departments had mcroa&ed, they had remained stationary as far as shearers wore concorond. As to tho statement that Mr Justice O'Connor, of the Australian Arbitration Court, had refused preference to unionists, he pointed out that tho reason for this was that tho rules of tho Union provided that part of tho funds should bo devoted to political purposes; the same did not anply to the New Zealand Union.

The President pointed out that tho Union was practically asking for an award in favour of a union or Australian workers. Tho New Zealand Union's membership amounted to i>oo, and of that number it had been staled that three-quarters were Australians. Did tho franiore of tho Act contemplate that a union of Australian workers should ask for an award of the New Zealand Arbitration Court? Tho Act was passed for the benefit of Now Zealand workers aiid not of Australian workers. The fact that so many • Australians found ifc worth while to oomo to N&w Zealand" seemed a fetrong argument in favour of the contention that the present rates in New Zealand were reasonable. "Why should tho Court make tho.rate so high as to_ tempt Australians to compote with New Zealand workers?

Mr Darcy Raid that the Australians were the men who did the work; further, the witnesses who had been Australians, bufc were now settled in New Zealand, had stated that tho average wage of 9s pe-r day could hardly bo considered a fair wage. Tho Union relied on tho official figures of tho "Year Book," and tho cheep returns, that 30 per cent, more sheep carried 63 per cent, more wool. Mr Scott had suggested n eliding scale as to rates of shearing bared on tho prico of wool: ho said that when wool was high the cheep owners had never offered" higher rates. The President: Did yon ask for it?

Mr Darcy said that they would have born quite prepared to accept it: they were quite prepared to do the profit-sharing principle. As to the employers' demand that thp word '"representative" should be deleted, he said that it w.-.k mnro, drastic and more unreasonable than any of the shearers' demands ; tho shearers ever since tho indn.<=t:v hrrl been in existence had established their right to control their work, more <■*>- pocir.lly in respect to wot .*hcep: they contended 'that matters in dispute could be hotter arranged between tho shed manager and the Union representative than between the shod manager and the individual shearers. "Mr Darcy then reviewed tho evidence given by tho employers' witnesses. a:.d rcfwriP-R to the objection to supply milk—that it would necessitate keeping a dairy stnff all tho year round—lie said that they would bo quite satisfied with condensrd or drird milk.

Tho President said that the Court would consider the wholo matter of tiie dispute.

COMPENSATION" CAKE

Wm. Jobn Collins (.Mr Donnelly) claimed compensation from S. P. anrlrow* (Mr Gco. Harj>;r) i:i re-poet tn injuries stated to have, born received whilst in respondent's employ as a qnarryman. The claimant whilst engaged at respondent.*- Heathcot e> quarry on January 11th, lOCS, loading a dray .and whilst in tho act of lifting a "large piece of rock, ho twisted lm right legst the knee, consequent upon « small yiano ho wns standing on slipping, with tho result that he lost his leg and had become totally incapacitated. ■«,.

Tho respondent denied li.-.bility. on the ground that the injury was not caused by accident nrising out of and in the course of claimant's employment.

Mr Donnelly detailed the circs: >rstanccft connected with tho case, which were generally supported by the evidence of the claimant, by clainnnr'.*. wife, and by Edward Howard (secretary of the General Labourers' Union), L. A. Cox. and J. H. Graham (labourers), and Edith Perkins, a married womor;. and a neighbour of claimant's.

D r . William Diamond stated that he clid not think that the condition of claimant's leg could have been brought about without some accident. It was a pity that a bacteriological examination had not been made of the amputated limb, as it would have determined the existence or non-exietence of tubercular disease of the bone.

Dγ. Alfred George Talbot. one of the *-isitin? surgeons at the Chnstchurch Hospital, gave evidence regarding the amputation of claimant's leg. The subsequent progress of the case was not that of tubercnlosiK. Witness had concluded that the old trouble had remained latent, but had l>e*n lit np »j*in probably by an injury or etrain; the injury described by claimant would have been sufficient to light up the old trouble.

Dr. John Guthrie, Lyttelton. also gave evidence. Mr Harper called J. T. Foot and John Gebbi* (quarrymen), William Ward (carter), S. H. Andrcxs (fore-

man), and S. P. Andrews (the respondent) to show that claimant had noi complained of the nccide.nt at tho time, and that he had complained, some time prior to the accident, that his leg was bad. Tho respondent stated that for 4S wpoks' work claimant had earned £103 9s 9d. Dr. E. Jennings stated that he had come to tho conclusion that claimant was suffering from chronic disease of the bone, which had resulted in the forTnrv'.ion of an abscess which, after being latent for many years, increased in size, and gradually infiltrated the bone and worked up towards tho knee joint, and finally buret into the joint. Theso conditions could arise apart from any d"firite injury. After hoarine; Dr. Talbot's evidence, ho was of opinion that there must have been a tubercular clement in th» condition of claimant's leg.

Dr. B. M. Moorhouso also gave evidence. At this juncture the case was adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.