ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20085, 14 November 1930, Page 11

ARBITRATION COURT.

THRESHING MILL OWNERS.

THE USE OF "TIN-" MILLS

An application to add 67 parties to the North Canterbury Threshing Mill Employees' Award was considered by the Arbitration Court yesterday morning. Points debated by the Court centred round the use of American or "tin" mills by farmers, where the mills were loaned to neighbours, or used under any arrangement outside the farm. Many objections were lodged, and many of these sustained, so that at the close of the sitting only eight remained unsettled. The formal finding of the Court was accordingly deferred. ■ The Court consisted of his Honour Mr Justice Frazer, Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative), and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees' representative). Mr D. I. Mac Donald appeared for the majority of those who opposed the applications, and Mr C. E. Baldwin for the Union concerned. . The Employees' View. Addressing the Court at the commencement of the proceedings, Mr Baldwin Baid that twelve months ago it was agreed by the Threshing Mill Owners' and Employers' Association, and his Union, that American or "tin" mill-owners should be included as parties to the award. For various reasons the matter was held up, the case was not filed, and two months ago he was informed by the Association that it did not desire to proceed any further with the agreement. Mr Baldwin alleged that an attempt was being made now by the Farmers' Union of the country to have the provisions of the Act, from the employees' point of view weakened.

It was pointed out by his Honour that if a man did not thresh outside his own property, then the Court had no power to include his name under the award.

Continuing, Mr Baldwin referred to a report of the situation that had been presented to the Labour Department, in which it was stated that farmers, at threshing time, would help each other with the work. The' Union contended, however, that this was not correct. There had been a case before the Court last year, and it was revealed then that men followed a mill from farm to farm, and were paid off by each farmer.

No Contract Threshing.

Mjr Mac Donald said that he knew that some farmers threshed under a partnership agreement. However, there was no question of contract threshing. At this juncture Mr Baldwin referred to what he termed "an organised attempt of the employers to push in." His Honour proposed that tho Court traverse the list of names of mill-ownr ers who, it had been suggested, should be included under the award. Those who threshed only on their own property, would be struck off the "list, which included the majority of the millowners in Canterbury. Several names were struck off, while others were held over.

At the conclusion his Honour stated that the eight names left in the list" would be added, but the Court would defer the final making of the order, and its formal findings, until such a time as a epecial clause, applying to accommodation and food on Amorican mills, could be drafted.