THRESHING RATES.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17319, 3 December 1921, Page 13

THRESHING RATES.

DISPUTE BEFORE ARBITRATION \ COURT. i 1 1 The Arbitration Court—Mr Justice i Frazer, president, Messrs Wm. Scott, employers' representative, and Mr M. J. Reardon, employees' representative, yesterday heard the dispute between the Canterbury Agricultural Labourers' Union and the threshing mill owners. Both parties had filed demands, but the union's had been filed first. For the employers Mr Geo. Sheat appeared, Mr Li auk Cooper appeared on l behalf of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, and Mr C. F. Baldwin appeared for the Lnion. A precis of the principal claims appeared in yesterdav's issue. Mr Baldwin objected to the Farmers' Union Doing represented; on no previous occasion had the Farmers' Union been separately represented. His Honour cited section 2 of the 1920 Amending Act and held that the Farmers' Union, as representing persons who might be affected by the award, was entitled to be represented. Mr Baldwin raised the point that the 'Farmers' Union was not registered under the Act. His Honour remarked that the Act did not provide that it should, the wording being "any organisation." Mr A. McKellar applied for exemp : tion on behalf of Mr John Grigg, ot Longbeach, on the ground that he threshed onlv on his own account. Mr Baldwin said that some thresh-ing-mill owners, who had been exempted on similar grounds, had done threshing for others. He admitted that Mr Grigg did not do so. his Honour said that in the case of exempted threshing mill-owners who threshed for others, they vould become parties to the award and would be liable to all its provisions. The Court would consider Mr McKellar's application later. Mr Baldwin, opening for the Union, said he assumed that it was the Court's intention to ueal with the case, as it had dealt with other cases, on the econonu.- conditions existing at present. There was not many matters in dispute: thev included hours ol work, number ot hands on the mill, houriy work, piecework, supplv of lood, and preference. In theOtago'-iSouthlaiiu district a partial agreement had been arrived at between the owners and the union and in that pa.-tial agreement the. owners had agreed to supply the food;for the workers : that was done in all otuer parts of the Dominion, and, as far as lie had been able to ascertain, it obtained all over the world. The committee should also take into consideration the fact that 7-j per cent of the workers on threshing mills were married men. As to the contract system, some said it was a groat boon and nenent; probably it was during the war period; but when the work was done at an hourly'rate it was quite satisfactory; the contract system caused dissension amongst the workers: it was a speeding-up system that knocktlumi out. He dealt with the other claims of the Union and asked that conditions in North Canterbury should be uniform with those in other parts of the Dominion. He called evidence. John Georgeson, Inspector of Factories, f'hristchurcb, claimed privilege under subsection 4 of section 100 of the Mr Baldwin said that he did not intend to ask any questions detrimental to individual employers. His Honour said that he did not see how the witness could give .evidence except about matters he had ascertained durin" the performance of his duties. • Mr°Baldwijci..asked if. witness ~ could givp his opinion, not as an inspector. His Honour said that the witness could not very well divide himself into Evidence'in support of the Union's case was given. , David Griffith, engine-driver, stated that an extra man was wanted to assist when any part of the work became very strenuous. • To Mr Sheat: He did not advocate a go-slow policy; he was agreeable to put it through as fast as the farmer wanted; ho was prepared to put it through 200 or 300 bushe.s an hour. When they got to 110 bushels an hour /after which hourly rates wer e chargeable) the iarmer would not* let them go faster. ~ •„ Mr Sheat said that he would call evidence to show that this statement was incorrect. . . , . Mr. Scott expressed the opinion that it was unnecessary to go into matters as if the present was the first occasion upon which the case had been before the Court. , ~ ~ Mr Baldwin submitted that it was time that the award was amended. . Witness, in reply to Jus Honour, stated that the wcrk ot threshing during the approaching harvest would .b» heavier than during last harvest. Evidence in support of tjic unions demands was given by Robert Leid and John Riley, general hands. Mr Sheat, opening for the employe's, said tliiat if the union's demands weie granted it would alter the whole of tho condit.ons in North Canterbury- From time immemorial they had had the contract system. The union practically asked to retain the high prices paid Ui* workers under t.hat\system and have their food supplied, lood would cost anywhere up to 30s per week per m-n. Under the system under which they Lad been working the food was supplied on the co-operative system, and the employer was debarred from makuyt any profit: the accounts were submitted to the men. The union asked that this cost should be saddled on to the fanw-r. Economically they were up against the necessity to reduce the cost of la hour. How were thev to do it if they liKreased • the cost of production. After detailing tho union's demands in respect of food, Mr Sheat said that if the cost was saddled on to tho farmer (and it would have to be saddled on him) it would ultimately be put on the loaf, to the disadvantage of the workers that the union claimed to protect. Farmers from South Canterbury would give evidence that tihe hour "system was more expensivethan the contract system. He asserted that a large, number of workers were opposed to the alteration from the contract to the hour system. They would have to deal in New Zealand at next harvest with from 9,000,000 to 11,000,000 bushels: there were 311,000 acres in wheat as compared with 221,000 acres last vear. and in place of receiving 7s <xl per bushel they were to receive, os (id per bushel. He called evidence. John Trotter, farmer, Fairlic, stated that it would be a great disaster if North' Canterbury came under the hours svstem, which lent itself to the go-slow p'olicy; there was an assurance about tiho svstem thnt men. got lax. under it. Threshing under the Hour system had cost him, under ideal conditions, 7Jd per bushel; if the weather had been bad it might have been easily Is. To Mr Cooper- Tho estimate of, £7 9s lid per acre to raise wheat was a reasonable one On a 23 bushel's yield, and wheat at 5s 6d, the fanner's return would be £6 6s (id.

John Patcrson, farmer, St. Andrew's, stated that members of the ist. Andrew's branch of the Fanners' Unioa came to conclusion that 5e 6d a bushel for wheat was not a paying price. The almost unanimous opinion was in favour of threshing by contract. Under the contract system he paid la&t year 5d per bushel, or with bonus', ojd per bushel. Under the hour fcystem ttoo cost ranged from <>id to I'd or lOd per bushel, in his own case, his farm btunj; on ihv tea coast, his crop wasshort in the straw and had wcll-ncaded grain. To Mr Koiiiihin: He did not know on what basis the Government had ar-

rived at the Guaranteed price for wlioat: a Timaru grain merchant had told him that if it was not against the, law lie would be prepared to offer tun 6s 6d a bushel. G L. Twentvman, farmer, TemuJra, stated that like all his neighbours hj» was in favour of the contract system. Under the hour system he paid from od to a little ever 7d per bushel. To Mr Baldwin: N'o application had been made bv farmers in his district to the mill-owners to alter the contract, svstem: t<hev objected to the hour system, but it was no use kicking against the pricks. Robert I>al«ll. mill-owner, Rangiera, stated that it lie had to find food for the workers he would have to pass on the increased cost totlie farmer- Under last venr's conditions he made a profit of I.oßd per bushel, which was slightly more than the profit made in 1914. 'Ho gave particulars of increases in costs as compared with 1914. James mnnaeer of P. and T>. Duncan,' Ltd., stated that though threshing-mill owners were m a better position than they were. 30 or 40 years ago, they woro not the best to have on one's books'. Fanners in Canterbury had never been in a worse position during the past thirty years than they were at present Repairs to threshing machines cost two and a 'half times more than in IS 14. Frank Dellow, worker on a threshingmill, stated that he did not want the present system altered; he was quite satisfied with it. To Mr Baldwin: He had-no experience of South Canterbury conditions: ho earned £o, £(i, «r £7 per week. Thomas M: Gee, another worker, also stated that lie was satisfied with the present system. James Olliver, mill-owner. Green street, Ashburton, stated that he had 48 years' experience. The mill-owners of. North Canterbury had always set themselves against the system of supplying food to the men. The wages of the men averaged from £4 10s to £o 6s Id clear, and £5 os 3d, clear, that is. after deducting the cost of food. The figures were from his own three mills. He had rarely had much difficulty in replacing men who left, and the mi)l could carry on for a day or so, until the man was replaced. He had never had any difficulty with the contract system," and his men had never expressed any wish tor the hour system. The men at present were fully protected. When tliey did not earn a certain amount, owing to the poorness of the crop, then they had the right to be paid by the hour. To Mr Baldwin: He would not object to a minimum of 100 bushels, providing the Court sustained the contract system. No men on his mills had advocated the hours system, to his knowledge. All the men he knew in his district were in favour of retaining the niece-work system. Mr»Ba T dwin: At the old rate? Mr Olliver: "Oh,l know about that." Continuing, the witness said the food on his mill cost him 30s 6d per man per week. His total threshing expenses over all amounted to £22 183 lOd per 1000 bushels of wheat. His gross return per 1000 bushels was £.21 18s. leaving a profit of £4 2s lOd per 1000. These figures did not take into consideration any rebates' he gave for prompt payments. Mr Sheat said that this was all the evidence he had to offer, and he did not propose to say anything more. Mr F. Cooper, on behalf of # the farmers, produced elaborate statistics of wholesale prices, which showed how the prices of goods, which the farmer "produced" had gone down, while the prices of goods which the farmer had to "buy" had risen. The farmer ceived less income than at November, 1920, by at least 18 per cent., and it was obvious that he could not afford to pay his helpers more, especially «a those'helpers' were lietter off owing to the fall in prices. The increase in the price of what the farmer produced was from 47.72 to 50 per cent., as compared with pre-war prices; while the increase in what the farmer purchased ranged from 65.86 »to 68.44 per cent. In- addition, land tax was 250 per cent, more, and local taxation 60 per cent, more; interest, railway and all transport had also increased. He.submitted that it was impossible for farmers to meet present rates, and that there is every reason for the reduction or rates; in fact, it was the plain duty of the Court, after seeing that the workers are provided with a living wage, to see that every encouragement should be given to the production of the staff of life: the Court could reduce. wages very materially,' and yet leave the workers bet-, ter off than when the last award was made. He gave figures showing that in 1914 on a 36 bushels' yield at 3s 6d' per bushel, the farmer got a credit of 27s per acre; while on last year's expenses, the credit was 21s 9d per acre. He called evidence. A. W. Jamieson,, manager N.Z. Farmers' Co-operative Association, stated that the Association dealt with between 11,000 and 12,000 farmers in the different districts in which the Association operated: the preponderance of their customers were mixed farmers. On an average the farmers' expenses had increased to a greater extent than his revenue. A farmer going to raise wheat must get financial accommoda'tion, and a farmer's whole position was looked into before an advance was made. If the farmer's expenses, in raising wheat, were reduced in proportion to the reduced price of wheat, it would be considered satisfactory. Sir Baldwin, addressing the Court, submitted that the evidence adduced practically justified the union's denial', ds. His Honour said that the Court would consider its award. The Court then rose.