THE FRARM LABOURERS' DISPTTE.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 13161, 7 July 1908, Page 2

THE FRARM LABOURERS' DISPTTE.

0 ARBITRATION COURT PROCEEDINGS. The Arbitration Court resumed it sittings in this city at tlio Provincia Council Chambers yesterday morning. FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE. In this dispute, Messrs D. Jones ant R. Evans appeared for a number of thi farmers cited, Mr H. l>. Acland for tin Sheopowners , Union, and Messrs J Thorn and E. Kennedy for the Canter bury Agricultural and Pastoral La bourers' Union. The President stated that he had re ceived a letter from Mr Henry H. Ho] land, conveying resolutions pa&scd at « meeting of "farmers at HawaiYicu las Thursday, dealing with the dibpute The first resolution, his Honour said was a very improper attempt on th< part of the formers who had pass©. it. to influence the- Court in deu-linj with tho dispute; it appeared to the Court to be cleariy an offence undo: Section 113 of the Arbitration Act liiUo and had the Court not been satisfiec that tlio had been passet j by tlioso at the meeting in i^noranct I of their responsibilities in the matter J it would have directed that Mr Uollanc j should be prosecuted under the sectioi ; of the Act mentioned. His Honouj I added that any newspaper publish J ing the rceodxiuou would uLso bo liabli I to bo proceeded against. As to t.h< j eompiaint made in tht> second resolution, > tion, that many farmers had not hac I an opportunity to place their case be : foTO the Court, his Honour said thai ! if any farmer wanted to bring any fur ', tlher facts before tho Court he shouk j communicate- with Mr Jones, and th< Court would deal with each applicatior as it arose. Mr Thorn, before dealing with tb< question of the practicability of ar award, eaid that the Union did noi wish to call any further evidence, a; it had called enough to establish its j case. Referring to tho reasons why ar award would be impracticable, outline* by Mr Jones when the matter was lat>i before the Court, he said that in so f«i as, thoso reasons wero honest ones, h< wouM show how they could be over come. As to the difficulty arising oui of the fact that farm labourers received payment m other than money, h< said that the Union wished to ensurt that every worker should receive eom< definite perquiji;es and money wages it was not desired to interfere will J other perqtiifcitc-3. Clause 17 of th< I lioaixl's rccoaiuicndiatioiis, to which th< ! Union raided no objection, broughi j within the scope of the award farmers ' who occasionally exchanged labour. Tlm j Board's recommendations as to the re j gulation of hours wero very definite and therefore he would not discius thai alleged difficulty; s&cing that if a weekly limitation of working hours wn« made it might result in men boirtg ask: ed to work 1(3 hours on some daTS, th« Union preferred that tho limit "should

jj ne a _airy one. no contenciea tnat tnen | was actually no idle- time on farms t. a warrant the statem_nt made that over- » time should not be paid in the spring J on Gooaunt of the interference witi f work in winter due to the wet w«ither J In support of his contention that ai » award was practicable, ho cited th< 9 pvidene* of John Ren-nie and Roberl t f-uthrie. Mr Acland had pointed ou. I the anomaly and absurdity of his position >tion under tho Board's recommend-- & tions when, owine toytho proposal thai | tbe sheepowners should be exempt from any award, he would be one day undei \ tbe award and the next not under it, « the Tnion desired the Court to remov. > Mr Acland and his follow sheepownei. , from their anomalous position by bring- ' inp: them under the award. He cit_>J ■ evidence m support of tho various de- [ mandß of the Union, and referred t< ; the minority report of the employers » repre.entative.s on the Board. _ The President: You do not need to . deal with that—it ia not official in any ) way. Jl Mr said there were some mis- | fitatem»nts in that minority report he j desired to correct. j Tbe President: It is a great pity that j they did not a_si«.t the Board in making » its recommendations; so far as the as- ' sistanoe given by them they might just ' as well have stayed at home. ' Mr Thorn, in tbe course of further * remarks. contended that married f counles on farms should be paid in ac--9 cordance with the Vninn's demands. 9 The I'residont asked if the Court had > a to decide the wages of domestic i workers: did they come within tbe ) scorie of the Art? \ Mr Thorn: That is for your Honour k to deride. k The President said that if domestic j workers came before the Court, as the-. J had threatened to do, the ooint would ' have to be derided, probably by the ? Court of Appeal. ? Mr nioni said that be had received 9 a letter from a ploughman, who stated 9 tnat bis employer wanted him to brinp 9 his wife on to tho farm, and alleged ) that. a_t_ording to the Board's recomf mendations, she could not claim an. | wa-zos; the farmer nlso wanted his j plougbrr-an to find all rations except meat; this meant that ho would havr to get firewood and coal, which would k take most of his wages. h Mr Brown (employers' member of tbr s Court) was of opinion that Mr Thorn ' should not have read the letter to the ' Court, as it was not evidence. 9 Mr Thorn said that ho did not subf mit it as evidence He proceeded tc 9 indicate tho recommendations of the f Board that the Union was prepared tc l accept, and gave reasons for tho inJ clmion in the award of provisions omit- | ted from the recommendations. Hf j suggested that the other side should ) tho preference to 'unionists clause he had offered, providing that when n j non-unionist was employed he 6houk . join the union before the completion o! * one week, the clause to apply to bons ' fido workers, who would be defined as » men holding less than 25 acres; th< » Board's recommendation, be pointec 9 out, provided for wholesale unionism * Ho cited evidence in support of th. P claim for preference, and dealt at sony 9 length with the neressity for the awar. 9 bein,? made applicable to the dairy in S| dustry. In support of the demand foi | tho regulation of the wages and con ) ditions of married couples he cited th' | case (given in evidence) of a farm la j bourer who was receiving £65 per an jl num, and who married a girl on the | same farm who was receiving £45 pei * annum, but as a married couple the\ I only received between them £80 or £85 k he admitted that this case had occurrec' ' sixteen years ago. The reason win * the union had been unable to brinp » witnesses in support of their demandr ' regarding married couples was on ao 9 count of the danger of such witnesse; 9 being victimi-sed. Regarding wages foi 9 threshers, ho said that the union wa. I prepared to accept tho rates in th< I Waimate Workers' award if the pro--9 visions in the farm labourers' award or 5 the matter were made to terminate al tho expiry of tho "Waimate Workers award. He dealt at some length witl the contention of the farmers' repre *• sentatives that f# long as contracting was allowed, tV fixing of a minimun wage would be an absurdity, and n.sker the Court to protect the workers bj preventing this. The President said that the Courl had no jurisdiction in regard to contract work, though he admitted thai sometimes the distinction between piec: "" work and contract work was a very finone. In the contingency referred t< i. by Mr Thorn, the Court would have tt be satisfied that contracting was not i id bogus arrangement entered into foi "•d the purpose of avoiding the award; ii ,r " it were such an arrangement, it woulc receive a very short shrift, et Concluding, Mr Thorn said that ii ry the opposition to the union's demand; _ had been so widespread and well-found - cd, as hrd been alleged, he would nol , have been able, from the evidence oi the witnesses for tho other sido, to have drawn his strongest arguments in favour of the union's demands. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. today, when Mr Acland will give reason; why the award should not apply tc tlio sheep-owners. ts ' —-