LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 301, 14 September 1921, Page 5

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE SHEARERS’ AWARD

Sir, —As the representative of the shearers and shearing-shed workers, a body that is responsible to some extent for all this excitement that has occurred through the Arbitration Court’s decision, and which compelled .the workers’ representative to resign his position, I wish to say that, after presenting the Court's decision at various meetings of shearers, and shed hands which I was called upon to attend in Hawke’s Bay, the following resolution, to bo forwarded to Judge Frazer, was passed at a large meeting of shearers and shed hands held in Hastings last Saturday afternoon: “That ’this meeting of Hawke’s Bay Native and pakeha shearers and sited hands uphold the action taken by Mr.' M'Cullough, the workers’ representative on the Court of Arbitration, . who resigned his position as a protest against Judge Frazer's decision r given in the shearers’ and shed hands’ jlisputc; and. further, we strongly protest against Judge Frazer’s judgment, as being against the weight of evidence supplied by the union, and in view’of the Court’s memorandiim this meeting has no further confidence in, the Court as a means of dispensing justice and equity to the workers of this Dominion.’’

\And now this excitement has somewhat died down, let me review the cause of this ill-feeling which has been created. ’ The shearers’ award can safely be classed'’ as the most ridiculous award that has ever been framed in Australasia, and I doubt very much as to whether the Judge himself understands fully the confusing position it presents to shearers and sheepowuerss and I will go further: I will challenge any auditor, including the Government Statistician, with the Judge and the employers’ representative, to give the faintest idea to the farmers what the price per hundred will be that they will have to pay to shearers this season.. ' We will take the season as wet, where, very’often, shearers shear from two to twenty sheep for the day. "the flay that ten. ehear-___ ers each shear two sheep. This means’® sl a per hundred rate of £5/10s. sd. We will next take the day upon which ten shearers shear five sheep each: the rate per hundred- will then be £2 18s. ‘4d. Therefore, the price laid down by the Court for shearing, viz.,.,305. per hundred, with the accumulated bonus of 2s. 2d. per day, from which the sheepowner is to deduct 20 per . cent., is the first intimation that the slysarcrs of this Dominion have received to go slow, because the slower the shearer tho higher the price per hundred it will be to the grower. - . According to tfhet Judge’s decision, if a’ shearer shears on/ hundred sheep the net price per hundred will be 255. 9d., but if a shearer shears 50 sheep each daythe price per hundred, will be 28s. ' Since the Court’s decision, ’ I have dishussed' ■ the award with some hundreds of shear-, ers and a large number of sheepowners, and the more they try to understand the award the more confused they become. J

There is another phase which, in my opinion, is a scandalous one, and that is the 20 per cent, reduction made on the shed hands’ wages by the Judge. The 1919 award allowed a presser £4 3s. per week, hut ■ Judge Frazer’s decision awards him £3 6s. 4d. per week, providing he is employed by the week. If he is employed by the hour, his wages in the la?t award were 2s. 3Jd. This 2s. 3|d. is to be reduced by 20 per cent., which leaves Is. 9d. (approximately), and a similar' reduction is made on every adTfTt shed hand receiving £3 18s. per week under the old award, as, under this new award, he would be getting .£3 2s. 4d. Therefore, I Kin not' surprised at the sheepowners’ attitude, through their secretary, Mr. Nicholson, shaking hands with, themselves for the treatment they have received from the Court. However, shearing is not yet completed, and unless the sheepowners or the Court can arrive at an award which can be understood, I will not be responsible for the unrest aijd trouble that may occur. In my mind, a unique situation' has arisen. Both sides that appeafed in the shearers’ dispute before the Court at Dunedin, Christchurch, arid Wellington agreed that a Dominion award should be made, but I have no intimation that the award framed by the Court applies to any district other than Wellington. Seeing that one member of the Court is outron strike, and the other two members are locked out, it is more than possible that the 1919 award will apply to all those industrial districts where the present award is not applicable. Possibly Sir Francis Bell on the GovernorGeneral may see fit to intefvene, and rectify the confusing errors that have been made in the award, and’ also place the shearing industry in apposition where it will be safe from am, etc., C. GRAY&DLER, ' ’’General Secretary, N.Z.W.U. September 13. ,