THRESHING MILLS DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13646, 1 February 1910, Page 8

THRESHING MILLS DISPUTE.

CASE BEFORE THE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONER.

REFERRED TO ARBITRATION COURT.

The Conciliation Commissioner (Mr J. E. TrigeO sat yesterday at the Provincial Council Chambers, to hear the dispute between the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Union of Labourers and the threshinc mill owners of North Canterbury. The following were assessors: —Employers: Messrs T. Burgin, W\ Doubleday, and H. k. Peryman; union: Messrs W. Bennett, R. Borland, and A. Paterson. The case for the employers was conducted by Messrs R. Evans and G. Sheat, and that for the Union by Messrs M. Laracy and E. Kennedy. About 126 owners of threshing mills were joined as parties to the dispute. Mr Evans questioned the qualifications of the workers' assessors to deal with the matters in dispute, and in reply Mr Kennedy said that they had been appointed by the Union, and were all practical threshing mill hands. The Commissioner said that he was quite satisfied that the assessors were fit and proper persons to represent the Union. Tho representatives of the employers questioned the existence of a dispute between the mill owners and the men employed in the industry, but the Commissioner explained that the action of the Union in filing the case constituted a dispute. There was a rather lengthy debate on the propriety of the Union's action in filing a dispute. The Commissioner said that they had had enough of this preliminary canter, and they should get to business. The first clause was that the hours of labour should be left to the employees', and the employers' representatives, but in no case should the employee be employed by lamplight or other artificial light. Mr Sheat objected to this clause, which he thought would impose an unreasonable restriction on the employers. A mill might be within a short time of finishing in the evening, and if artificial light were prohibited the mill would havo to stop for the night, and start next morning. If the clause were not passed, the mill mig"ht finish, and be ten miles away in the mornina.

The employers' representatives opposed the clause. Mr Sheat added that he had been appointed to represent eighty mill owners before the Council, and he had been instructed to do all in his power to prevent an award being made containing the conditions asked for. Mr Evans said that tho employers must have control of their mills.

Mr M. liaracy said that he had -worked in the Oaraaru district for five years, and artificial light was not need there. Mr Sheat supported freedom of oontnact. Threshing had to be done when weather permitted, and they had to get at it as quickly as possible. Mr Kennedy said that on Mar J. C N. Grigg's Longbeach farm the mills worked from 7 a.m; to 7 p.m., with an hour for dinner, and fifteen minutes for lunch.

The employers' representatives objected to definite hours being fixed. Mr Kennedy produced a copy of the Marlborough Award, made in 1907. This specified 60 hours in one week, the hours to be regulated by the employers. Fifteen minutes were to be allowed in the forenoon and afternoon for refreshments, that time to be included in the hours of labour.

Mr' Peryman said that there was so muah at stake that there should be no such restriction. If the mills had worked every. available. hour last week the country would have been thousands of pounds in profit. . r - Mr Sheet said that the present week was an example of the impossibility of fixing the hours. The men were now walking about doing nothing. It was decided to leave this clause to the assessors, and to pass on to the next clause, which dealt with: the number of men to be employed at each mill. The clause submitted by the Union suggested a driver, a feeder, three stackmen, three " bagmen, a strawman, a waterman, and a cook in icamp; no hoys to be employed under the age of eighteen.

The employers objected to thas clause. Mr Evans objected to the feeder being counted, as he was a part of the mill, and etood between the employer and the employees. Hβ aJeo objected to tihrce bagmen as unnecessary/ and' abto to the waterman and the cook.. As to the boye, a lad could easily be employed carrying -water. Mr Kennedy said that some years ego it -was the custom in North Canterbury to employ three bagmen, but this had been discontinued. The employers reduced the number to two, and divided the third man's wages among the remaining two. Latterly, however, they had not been getting .this extra pay. The Union were very strongly against the employment of iboys on machines, as it was inhuman to put them on some of the work. Mr Sheat said that he had never known of three bagmen being employed on mills in the DunsandeT district. He had also yet to learn that employers were inhuman in their treatment of their employees. It was decided to pass on to the next clftuee, which set out that the waterman should attend to the horses, and that in all oases where the straw was stacked two extra men should be employed. Mr Evans said that the millownere bed nothing to do with the stacking of the straw. He agreed that the waterman must look after the horses.

After considerable debate the clause was left to the assessors.

The next clause eet out that in all oases in North Canterbury threshing from the stook should be suspended, and all grain should be stocked.

Mr Kennedy explained that the Union asked for this clause because under the present system there was to.> much lost time. The men could not make the same time threshing from the stook as they could threshing from the stack. The men were asked to wait about on wet mornings, and after damp nighte, to do the farmers' work, and not get paid for it. This work was forking the stuff from the paddock. Both the millowner and the men suffered through loss of time. The men had to wait until the stuff was dry enough in the stook to thresh, if it was not stacked. Thcv did not *jet paid for that time. Mr Evans said that the owners could not possibly agree to the clause. He maintained that the men earned more money per hour out of the stook than they did out of the stack.

The Commissioner said that the Waimate employers gave a titUe more for threshing from the stook. He did not regard the request for the suspension of stook threshing as a serious one.

Mr Paterson said that the question was really what extra amount would be paid for stook threshing. Mr Burgin eaid that it would be a desastrous tiling to Mil stook threshing. A laree amount of grain which had been threshed from the Ktook Has year (probably 1,000,000 bushels) would have been damaged if it had not been threshed. He believed that tbe men oould jxmke more money from stook threshing then by threshing from the stack. If stook threshing were abolished, it would delay threshing by six week*, which would be a serions mitur.

Tbe Commissioner raid that th© Union sew with <2he employers that stook threshing could not be done without.

The next clause related to the rates of pay. The Union demanded Is ftd per hour and found for the feeder, tho cook £2 10s per week, and found; and

all other worktrs (except the driver) Is 3d per hour, end found. Mr Kennedy explained that in the North Canterbury district alone the contract or piecework system prevailed. The Union did not consider that the men made a fair and reasonable under the present system. At <m> piece he believed that the men this sv-\----sou averaged 6d per hour, and in the Asbburton district, at the contract price of 10s per 1000 bushels of oate and 12k per 1000 for wheat and barJ<-y. the men were practically in debt for their tucker. (Laughter.) This matter was discussed at great length, the attitude of the employers being decidedly hostile. They claimed that under the present system the men earned a fair wage. Mr Evans said that Marlborough was of such insignificance as far as harvesting was concerned, that the awara there was not worth considering. As a matter of fact, the award was a dead letter there. It was decided to pass on to tne iwxt clause, which dealt with shifting the mill. The Union asked that all men employed 1* paid full tune when shifting the mill from stack to stack, but all men covered by these conditions to be exempt from payment, except the feeder, when shifting from farm to farm. Mr Burgin said that only the feeder and driver were required to shift a mill from stack to stack. The othor men merely sat in the galley and smoked. He did not see why they should be paid for doing nothing . Mr Kennedy said that if the men wero to do nothing he would not ask for payment. If, they had to "set" the mill they should be paid. Mr Sheat said that the time occupied in shifting from stack to stack, in the same paddock, was about five minutes.

Mr Kennedy said that he had seen men take c whole day to shift a mill a few chains.

Tho next clause dealt with the food to be eupplied. The Union asked that food be supplied free of cost; mealtime to be one hour for dinner, and lunch to be provided, when the mill is -working, twice per day, twenty minutes being allowed on each occasion. Mt Evans said that th« whole question depended on the decision come to on the subject of wages and the contract system.

Mr Kennedy agreed with this. Hβ suggested that the assessors ehould retire and discuss the question of wages. The Commissioner preferred to go through all the clauses first. The next clause, providing for payment of wages, was then taken. It set out that any employer who dismissed any worker ehould pay the worker all wages due to him, and also pay wages due to any employee who might leave his employment. Mr Kennedy submitted that this was a fair proposal.' Ho said that some men had not yet been paid for last season's work. Mr Evans said that it was unfair of men- to leave a mill in the middle of a job without reasonable notice. Mr Kennedy claimed that this should operate on both sides. The clause dealing with "temporary disputes" set out that trivial disputes should be decided by , a representative of the men and the driver, as representative of the employer. Mr Evans objected to this clause. The owner should be master on the job. The Union representatives said that the clause was to obviate the necessity of the whole of the employees approaching the boss on any small dispute which might arise. The next claiiee asked for preference of employment to members of the Union.

Mr Kennedy said that the Union was composed of the best body of men in the country. He asked for a preference clause of some value, and suggested that engagements ehould be made subject to the employee becoming a member of the Union within a week.

Mr Sbeat objected to the clause in toto. Preference could not be applied to this industry. After they had taken all the good men out of the Union, not half the mills, not even a quarter, in Canterbury, would 'be manned. There were not two per cent, of Union men on the mills,. and he did not see why the 98 per cent, should be dominated by that percentage. He believed that there had been a big secession from the ranks of the Farm Labourers' Union, so preference was even more urdeeirable. The clause asked for meant compulsory Unionism, and lie objected to it. >Jr Kennedy thought that the preference asked for was a reasonable one. As to their Union, there was a membership of 1400. Mr Sheat: They don't pay their subscriptions, and they should be struck off.

Mr Evans also opposed compulsory preference as impracticable. ■ The clause limiting the weight of sacks to 2001b was agreed to. The questions of keeping tallies, scope of the agreement, the posting of copies of agreement in the galleys, the fixing of pay day, and the demand for the abolition of contract or piecework, were referred to the assessors.

The Union's proposal to apply the Farm Labourers' Accommodation Act to all mills in the district was referred to the assessors. The employers' representatives claimed that it would 1 b" requiring too much from the millowners, and that the ipresent tent arrangements were satisfactory. The final clause was that the secretary of the Union ehould have free ingress and egress in regard to any and every mill working under the agreement. This was also referred to the assessors.

The assessors then went into committee to consider the various clauses. On resuming, the Commissioner reported that no agreement had been arrived at, and that the dispute' had been referred , to the Arbitration Court.