HIGHER WAGES SOUGHT.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19785, 25 November 1929, Page 4

HIGHER WAGES SOUGHT.

MUSTERERS, PACKERS, AND DROVERS. EMPLOYERS RESIST ADVANCES. Increased wages were sought by the Canterbury mustcrers, packers, and drovers in the Arbitration Court on Suturday morning. Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Messrs L. J. Schmitt (employers' assessor) and A. L. Mon-U-ith (employes' representative). Mr A. Cook, with Mr C. E. Baldwin, appeared for the union, and Mr W. H. Nicholson and A. S. Cookson (Dnnedin) for the employers. The claims were: Musterers £1 10s n day and found. Sunday work time and a half : packers £1 a day and found, Stindav work time and a half; musteieis anl packers engaged on snow raking £1 l r >s a day; youths learning mustering £2 10s a week for the first year. £3 5s lor the second ycir, and'found: drovers £1 5s a day and all necessary expenses. The employers held to the old award:— M'lsterers £4 6s n week or 17s 8d a day if engaged by the day, l"s 8o extra" for Sunday work if engaged bv the week; packers £3 lis a week or 16s 2d n day; £1 5s a day for musterers and packers engaged on snow raking; drovers £1 Is 8d a day and necessary expenses; youths learning mustering £1 10s a week for the 6rst year, £2 for the second year. Mr Cook s a id that musterers, packers, and drovers did not participate in increases obtained by other pastoral workers during the 1928-29 season They were entitled to an intre.i>e ennui to the increase granted to shearers, shed hands, and others Mr Nicholson said that in the pastoral industry the position was greatly in favour ot the employee, with his .-■s-suranec of a fair wage, which must be paid irrespective of the condition ol the- industry. There had been decreased prices lor wool and lamb. Recent increased taxation was in many cases a crush in" blow that individual sheep-owners had to face with lowered it-comes. There was no ground for the claims on the plea of cost of living All goods showed only 60 per r«>nl above pre-war levels, while musterers. under the previous award. »>>ro niven 7~i per cent, more wages than before the war. The employers .•ilvvay- were prepared to pay the economic value of labour, but no single case, or even any set of cases, could be the basis of argument to cover tlie whole: each case, usually, had its own circumstances. If primary production was maintained, there must be some freedom of contract between ;he parties*. The employees' claims were wildly extravagant. They wore Title outside the capacity of the in'instiy. The claims did not provide lor n '--oeklv rate. That was very unfair It w,"\o manifestly unfair to suggest that men employed continuously tor i"ng periods should be paid on a casual haM> The claims on behilf of youths were out of all. proportion to the value of the work. As far as conditions were concerned, every reouisite was adequately provided for in Ae old awnrd. One clause in the claims, if

insetted in the award, would result in no rights remaining to an employer to use his permanent hands for any operations covered by the award. The effect would be practically to do away -with the permanent employment of shepherds and other workers on farms and stations engaged in mustering or packing, and to force an employer to shcrten to the minimum the time of employment of workers under that head. His Honour intimated that the Court would consider its award and would adjourn till 10 a.m. to-day.