ARBITRATION LAW

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 233, 28 June 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION LAW

« SAID TO BE DEFIED BY FARMERS WORKERS COMPLAIN TO THE MINISTER LAW-BREAKERS WILL BE PUNISHED in replying to a of a workers' deputation that certain Southland farmers were breaking the taw in conz nection with Arbitration Court awards, tho Minister of Labour said It v/as very difficult to get evidence; he understood, from reports ho had seen, that it was doubtful if tho law had actually been broken. But, said the Minister, “whenever there is ®videnco that the law has been broken by either party I am going to prosecute.”

A complaint that farmers wero defying the arbitration law was placed before the Minister of Labour (Hon. G. J. Anderson) yesterday morning by a deputation representing tho New Zealand Workers’ Union. The farmers of Southland, according to the deputation, were making it difficult for the unions to avoid resorting to “direct action.” The Minister assured the deputation that his Department was prepared to' prosecute in every case where a breach of the law could be proved. Mr. 8. Boreham said he was prepared to state that the farmers of Southland were out to wreck the Conciliation and Arbitration Act as far as it affected them. Very many of them had refused to pay the thrashing mill hands the wages fixed by the Arbitration Court, and they apparently had been able to maintain this attitude with impunity. They were involving the whole country in a loss by the practice of thrashing from the stook, with the object of reducing the wages of the workers. The trouble, explained Mr. Boreham, was that the Southland farmers had refused last season to pay the thrashing mill hando the Is. lOd. per hour fixed by the Courts There had been concerted action on the part of the farmers to force the wages down to Is. 3d. or Is. 6d. per hour, and pressure had been brought te bear upon individual farmers who were, willing .to pay the award rate. Similar action had been taken In Otago. If tho Court was te be defied in this way with impunity then the workers would be forced into direct action in the protection of their interests. The farmers probably did not realise how much trouble the union officers were having in restraining the direct actionists at the present time. The workers had merely to hold off for a few weeks in the harvesting season or the shearing season to cause an enormous loss to the farmers. If the farmers threw off the protection of the arbitration law they would, be making the mistake of a lifetime. Mr. Boreham added that the farm workers would be glad to get away from the Act if they considered only their own interests. “The thraldom of this misdirected Act is of no use to us,” .he said. “But ns citizens we. realise the danger to tho community if the Act breaks down. If the Act is to continue it should be enforced firmly and promptly.” Thrashing had been practically completed in Canterbury and North Otago, but in Southland not more than one-third of the crop had been thrashed. Much of it was still in stock. The farmers were to blame for this state of affairs. A Cumbrous Business. Mr. G. Townsend said the position was that tha farmers’ unions were not registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and so the workers’ unions had te proceed against the individual farmers. Tho Southland farmers had taken advantage or the fact that they were not bound individually bv the decision of the Court unless they had been cited individually, and very tew of them had paid the award rates. He proceeded te mention the names of farmers who had defied the Court. The legislation, said Mr. Townsend, was defective. The farmers’ union and the sheepowners unions were not registered,, and therefore the workers were required te cite each farmer and sheepowner separately. This was a very difficult and cumbrous business, and it cost the workers and tho department a great deal of money. He suggested that when tho Court gave an award tn any Industry, all employers within the industry should be held to be bound by it unless they showed cause te the contrary. Minister’s Reply. “Whenever there is evidence that the law has been broken by either partv I am going te prosecute, said tho Minister in reply. It often is not easy te get evidence. It is. sometimes very difficult te get evidence, but whenever I can get a case that will not be laughed out of the Court I will take action. If a farmer jn Southland has broken the law he will be prosecuted. But I understand from the reports thot it is doubtful if tho law has been broken.” The Minister addedl that he did not believe it would be possible to frame nn sward to govern all the requirements of farm labour. tne conditions of agricultural work were peculiar, and could not bo brought within an award. He would see that the law was enforced in the thrashing industry ■as far as possible. Farmers' and workers ought to, no coming together at the present time, and either making agreements or accepting the decisions of the Court. Tie would consider the question of citation. It seemed absurd teat a union should have* to issue six or eight thousand citations in one dispute. but on tee other hand ho recognised that if men were to be required to obey decisions of the Court thev must be given an opportun y to present their side of the case. He could assure the denutation teat the desire of the Government was to treat both sides fairlv and imnarfinlly