THE FARMERS AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 212, 1 June 1908, Page 5

THE FARMERS AND THE ARBITRATION ACT.

AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. ... (BY TELEGRUPH. —SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.) Chrlstchuroli, May 29. At .the annual .conference of the North Canterbury. District branches of the New Zealand Farmers' Union yesterday, the delegates spout a considerable amount of' time discussing matters connected with the Arbitration laws of the Dominion. Mr. Cooper (Oxford) moved':—" Inat this branch considers that as strikes are' practically impossible on farms, the farming industry should be exempt froih the Arbitration Act." The mover said that any attempt to rogulate the hours of labour on a farm must bo unworkable. Tho-position of farm labourers was better in New Zealand than elsewhere. >' Several speakers contended that strikes wero not impossible Oil farms any more than in any other industry. . s Mr. Lill said that ho had had a strko on his farm, and what had happened once could happen again. There were a thousand reasons why a farm should not bo worked under an award of the Arbitration' Court. • - Mr. Dixon suggosted, an alteration to the effect that the motion should be a recommendation from the . conference urging the Government to exempt'tho farming ihdustry from tho operation of the.Arbitration Act. Tho mover accepted the alteration, butsaid a general strike was-impossible in the industry, though' there might be strikes on individual farms. , - v • Mr. G; W. Leadley said that as'long as the Act was on the Statute Book ..it would not be right, wise, or logical for the Union to ask. that any section of. the community should be exompt from its operation. Tho farm labourers had every right to combine j in support of their demands for &de<juato remuneration for their work, and to securo conditions that wero safe, fair, and sanitary, but,.when they said to the supervising and originating head that lie was' a nonentity he (the speakor) joined issue at ance. Ho would make the Act so drastic that any man who' ■broke tho law. would suffer.. .Their grievance was that the administration of tho law was one-sided. ; They should suggest improvements, and point out failures and discrepancies in the Act. Mr. Dixon said that tho whole trend of. the- evidence in the recent farm labourers' dispute had been to show, that farming could not bo - conducted under • any;, set of fixed rules. ■ Several other delegates also;; spoke, aiid they were " unanimously in support of the amended motion.' ' . Mr. 0. F. Clothier said that it ; was not originally intended that the industry should come under the awards of the Court, but the country members of the : House neglected their duties.' . ! The motion was carried. . . Mr. C. Reid (Ashburton) moved: " That* tho question whether the awards of the Arbitration Court shall be law in any districtshould be decided by the majority of electorsat the same , time and place, as the quest-iaaj of lioense or no-license.' Mr. Dixon seconded the-motion pro forma... Some doubt was expressed as to whether tho remit conveyed exactly what the . branch desired the Conference to affirm, and after some 1 discussion Mr. Jones moved as an amendment: " That' if the Arbitration Act is. to remain .in operation, no dispute should bo brought before the Conciliation Board or Arbitration Court until the majority 'of workers, engaged in ■an industry vote in favour of it," Mr. Dixon seconded the anwiiiliiftauL. The position of the farmera .'in' regarf: td: the Arbitration Act wa-s again reviewed by" several speakers. ■ Mr. Leadley said that tie Act was originally passed :in deferemoe to the demands ■ of the workers, ■ and:, so* long as it- seemed'. to favour them was a popular ..law. The momont it seemed to controvert their, wishes it became. unpopular. , Judges had been put off the Bench because their decisions did not suit the: workers', delegates; (Oh! ;ohl) Mr. Leadley : 'Why was Judge Cooper put off? . A Delegate: Ho retired. Mr. Leadley expressed some doubt as to the retirement, and the connecting cause, but.did not pursue the subject further. The motion was . withdrawn; : and the amendment passed. •A further remit from; Ashburton was moved by Mr. Leadley as follows:—" That the Union is strongly of opinion that Conciliation Boards should be abolished in favour of a system of wages boards, consisting of experts in _ tho industries affected, wnich should bo immediately dissolved after the completion of each case." The mover said that this system was in vogue in Australia, where it was successful.'. Men should not be asked to fix conditions of labour for an industry about' which they knew nothing. Thoy could not bo expccted to h§ walking encyclopaedias on every trade and industry in the country. Mr.' Dixon thought that the conference should not, countenance the Arbitration Act in any shapo or form, as it was not' applicable to the forming industry. After further discussion, the mover consented to withdraw the motion.