FARM LABOURERS DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 234, 26 June 1908, Page 8

FARM LABOURERS DISPUTE.

MINORITY REPORTS. STATEMENT BY THE EMPLOYERS' . REPRESENTATIVES. (BY TELEGRAM.—PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Christchuroh, June 25. The minority reports in the Farm Labourers' dispute were presented to the Arbitration Court together with the main report mado public yesterday! Messrs. Broadhead and George Shcat, who represented tho employers on the Board, submitted the following minority report:— " We, tho undersigned members of the Canterbury Conciliation Board, beg to dissent from the finding of tho majority of tho Board in the Canterbury Agricultural Labourers' dispute for tho following reasons: — "(1) That the evidence showed conclusively that there was not, and never had been, any real dispute between tho farmers and genuine farm workers.' "(2) .That until a few men employed in trades in the city visited the farming centres for tho purpose of organising tho farm labourers, no troublo of • any consequence between tho employees and their employers ha.d arisen. " (3) That the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly against tho wisdom of, or any, necessity for, making an award applicable to tho, farming industry as the following facts taken from,the evidence will show:— "(a) Witnesses called: Tho Union called about 53 witnesses, nearly 20 per cent, of-whom wero not ongage'd in tho' farming industry at the time they gavo evidence, whilo tho farmers called besides 89 farmers, two farmers' sons, 1 24 ploughmeu, etc., 17 contractors, fivo permanent day men, one overseer, and two casuals, making a total of 50 gen- ; uine farm'labourers, and a grand total of 156-witnesses. " (h) Question of dissatisfaction: The number of witnesses called by the Union who said there was dissatisfaction among the workers was-about 17,-while ■there'were no fewer than 82 witnesses, , onibraciiig some workers, who stated either that no dissatisfaction existed, ,- or that thoy had heard of none. Gonerally speaking the workers called by tho farmers expressed themselves quite satisfied with', existing, conditions, and de--sired no -change. "(c) Wages: It was shown that tho < wages paid-in each district varied according, to tho capacity of tho men. That tho work of the employees on a farm was frequently varied so much that it would be practically impossible in a number of cases to compute tho rates of pay of each worker if the proposed schedule or one of a similar character were ad- , opted, and that the varying nature of tho land, , the different conditions under which tho land had to bo worked, and tho varying class of men often employed, rendered the . position too complex to admit of any rigid fixing of wages. It was further shown that the 'remuneration paid in cases, and privileges granted, were fair and reasonable for the services rendered.' ' "(d) Hours: The fixing of hours of labour • was considered v impracticable, as farm hands woro required to do all kinds of' work at all hours, and when woather conditions permitted. " (e) Holidays: In the great majority of cases holidays wore given to tho labourers on full pay, wlion asked either for pleasure or for other purposes. This ' was admitted byworkors called by both parties.' "(f) Saturday half holiday: Twentyfive witnesses called by the farmers and ton by the Union donsidered that tho giving of. a Saturday half-holiday was not practicable'. Ton witnesses called by the Union thought it was workablo. "(g) Contract: Nearly fifty witnesses stated that they preferred contract, as it enabled them to earn high wages, and allowed them to work as-little or as much as they pleased,- whi]e*-abo,ut.nino witnesses said- they preferred to work at so much per hour.

, "(h) Preference: It was stated that thero were about 1500 farm workers on the membership roll of the Unioii, whilo , it was estimated thero were from 15,000 to 16,000 in the wholo of Canterbury: that tho Union's rules showed that tiio Union was a close . corporation, and could theroforo exclude from its membership whomsoever it pleased, and that many men, including small farmers who . owned land, but who . also worked for others farmers, and who would not bo eligible'for membership of tho Union, would, if a preference clause were granted, be debarred from employment. It ■ also' shown that farmers might, ; under such a clause, bo compelled to ( tako into their households men of undesirable character, and that any provision for preference would bo wholly unworkable and detrimental'to the industry. "(i) Overtime: It was pointed out that overtime on the farms was often inevitable, but that this was fully compensated for by holidays given on full-pay, and by terms of slackness occasioned through weather conditions.

| "(4) That an award, if made, would offeet drastic change in tho . system undor which farm , work has .been carried on in Canterbury.during .the past fifty yoars: that the bulk of the ovidonco, of both employers and workers showed that that system'had worked satisfactorily; and that if tho proposed change in the conditions, wore brought about, it would, in our opinion, cause grave dissatisfaction and seriously disturb ,the present harmonious relations existing between employer and employed. "(5) That as the farming industry, as pointed out in the ovidence, is at present sufforing, from reverses caused by the past two years' drought, it would, in our opinion, be unwise in the interests not only of tho industry, but of tho general public, to place any further burdens upon it. " (6) That in view of tho foregoing facts we are strongly of opinion that tho best solution of the present trouble is to allow the existing conditions to continue. THE WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVES. The minority report of Messrs. H. R. Rusbridgo and G. R. Whiting, tho workers' representatives •on the' Conciliation Board, made the following recommendations:— Wages: Head shepherds on plains ordowna' country (if married) shall receive a minimum wage of not less than £l'l2s. 6d. per week, and on back and .'mountainous country not less than £1103. 6d. per week. House, fuel, rations, horses, and feed for dogs to be free of rent or other charges. Any other necessaries as per agreement. The same wages shall be paid to all single men, and board and lodgings in lieu of house, otc. Under-shepherds,' 305.; casual ' shepherds, 355.; musiterers, lis. per day, or £3 per ,week, with 10s. extra for Sunday workpackers, £3 and 10s; extra for Sundays. The report continues, with regard to the following .items of tho demand sheet—(a) Saturday half-holiday; (b) wages for four horse ploughmen , and general farm hands, 24si per week, and swamp ploughing 30s. per wepk; (c) wages for day labourers 6s. per day—we desire to' place 'on record very clearly that' wo liavo agreed to the Board's decision in this connection simply andsololy for_ the 1 ' purpose of demonstrating that a majority of tho members of the Board are convinced of the practicability of ail award in this industry. The decision does not ombody our opinions as to what constitutes a fair award in tho abovo-montloncd cases. Our opinions are as follow:— Day labourers: That 8J hours should bo worked on fivo days of. tho week and 4J hours on Saturdays, cxcopting at harvest time.

Ploughmen and general farm hands: That a half-holiday should bo allowed on Saturdays to all ploughmen and general • farm hands, excepting in harvest time. Wages for ploughmen and general farm hands: That 275. Orl. per week be allowed for ploughmen working a 4-liorse team, and for general farm hands, and 355. per week for swamp ploughing. The wage of 275. fid. per week is embodied in our clause re married couples herewith, and is, we contend, clearly justified by the report

Dealing with the present conditions of tho farming industry, for which report a majority or the members of the Board voted:— Wages for day labourers: .That 7s. per day at least should bo paid to'day labourers. Jilts also is justified as above, and by the tact that navvies, general labourers, road hoard men, and railway men aro now receiving l.s. to 9s. per day. A great deal of evidence was given showing that 7s. per day is beinp; paid in many cases, particularly in iboutn Oanterbur)', and in some cases 7s. od. and Bs. per day is being paid to day labourers. In somo instances dinner is also provided.

llio report also recommends that wages of married couples shall be: man 275. Gd. per week, wife, if cook, los. per week, but if T to bako bread 20s. per week. In addition to the above, the wile shall. rcceivo if ? or i wp . extra for each person over four that she is required to cook for. The following clause is recommended ■re contract work: No work covered by these conditions shall be let by "contract" or "piecework. This shall not provent any man ownnig a team doing team work by contract! Ih'S- clause- shall not apply to contractors owning machinery operated by steam, electricity, -horse, or other motive power, but shall includo all work of a manual character whether dono for tho owner, proprietor, or contractor. A strong protest is entered against the clause: dealing with milking, on tho ground that milking might be provided for in a nine-hour day of two shifts. The concluding paragraphs in tho report are classification of witnesses. Throughout the hearing of the case many quito unjustifiable charges were mado with regard to the witnesses called on behalf of the workers to the effect that they were not bona fide farm labourers. Wo would draw the Court's attention to the classification lists of • witnesses submitted by the Board, which lists were approved of unanimously by th,o Board. Sixty-one out of tho total of sixty-fivo witnesses called on behalf of tho Union were farm and station workers. Preference to Unionists: In regard to the clause dealing with preference to unionists in the Board's report, wo would impress upon the. Court the . absolute need of preforenco being given to unionists on account of the bitterness and resentment that has been shown to unionism by nearly every employer throughout the hoaring of this case. We consider that common justico demands that the unionists should have that protection to which they are entitled as members of a registered body, and that the Court should grant them preference on' such lines as will ensure them that protection.