AGRICULTURE WORKERS

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21907, 7 October 1936, Page 8

AGRICULTURE WORKERS

Wives of , Employees

explanatory sta|h|H BY IKINISTR#SH — ■ — [Fran Our Parliamentary BfiftMgt WELLINGTON. A statement clarifying the <|||| of wives of dairy-farm employing they are affected by the provirinMl the AjnriculturalWorkeKAct^-w made to-day by the hour (the Hon. H. T. Minister explained thatfcrom letteejE had received it appeared that aj|| understanding existed, and that ||| employment of married cmndca t> grins might be prejudiced ff of the act was not made, clear. Mr Armstrong said that ttw down a minimum wagettf £Z week, in addition to board ndJB SZ for a dairy-farm worker. hoard and lodging were not pvMK the worker was entitled to E# ktwHK' In many cases the>orker was nagg and he and his mfewere enga|||| a married couple. with a, free foodstuffs provided. The free Wmm and foodstuffs in such a case w^B regarded as free board am M|| under the act. and could not Into account as part °* ““ the worker. ’

nm mU ITnlMiy VWriMR band, but not the Minister said. wife was governed by the native «» work, if any. she was requite* form for the fanner. If w jNittf! eased wholly on farm work, tognto. was entitled to the statutory wa»«& holidays. If she m jgfc main, only' domestic owjtofitoWagM. assisted for brief periods farm work, she ahould be pttn jnK *spect of the latter dutitf, • 4atagf portion of the statutory admissible, in computing the. proportion, to take into --eriSßitt*] rent value of a free houseJhWSßp value of milk, butter, or any i provided by the fanner. If «|JMi worker's wife was engaged caWHi mestic duties, then she to the legislation, ana tion was a ..matter tor prwme mfIMW ment with the employer. tp Beasonable Tbastoasag “It is not desired by the. OMjh ment. in its endeavour to pory* workers on a better tooting, to. (M| difficulties in the way ot the ment of married couples. strong said. “Both emptoysn wmgm ployees are recommended to aujNn the nearest branch of the KhgjißHl partment particulars of cases njaV they are concerned, and wl|fflliaMfc thipk require individual coniwsaßft Farmers are particularly rapjewpßßl to terminate the engagement of OMB couples until they nave made nftaß the department thattheir own eg** employees’ .estimate of the new Vjßßa due is correct Fanner* need m£9B that precipitate action wiHbe «■ by the department to hwtitntopitomK ings, and certainly no action vSHr taken while a fanner is a waitiogggg ruling of the .department, On gyj* submitted by him. The DcnartHK will make every endeavour to each case reasonably, and is InstrucnaH its inspectors to treat f»ch case op Itfl merits, as it recognises the wide wf atlons in, the QWiditions that apjjfjJli farm engagements of married coupMr