THE SHEARERS’ DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 256, 13 July 1926, Page 5

THE SHEARERS’ DISPUTE

SHEEPOWNERS’ CASE MR. W. H. NICHOLSON’S STATEMENT Extract from Christchurch “Press.” (Published by Arrangement.) The following is the statemenft of the case presented on behalf of New Zealand Sheepowners, before the Arbitration Court, in Christchurch, on Thursday, July 1, 1920, by Mr. W. H. Nicholson, secretary of the New Zealand Sheepowners 1 and Farmers’ Federation :— SHEARERS’ RATES (1) Recent Awards of the Court. In September, 1921, at- a time of abnormally low wool prices, when the sheep-farming industry was in a state of very great depression, the Court made an Award for shearers and shedhands. To that Award was attached a memorandum in which the Court set out very clearly the principles upon which its Award was based. The Court then stated, inter alia, that it was not proper to leave wages unsettled in a time of depression, more especially in the case of an industry suffering more soverelv than others from the depression. It was the duty of the Court protect both employers and workers, and the effect of omitting to provide for rates of wages would be to leave the workers entirely in the hands <■( their employers, some of whom, owing to financial pressure, might take advantage. of a surplus of labour, and cut down rates to an unfair extent. Having given these reasons, ammgst others, tor making an Award, the memorandum of the Court went on to explain the principles upon which the Award was based. It found that for some years, while the sheep-far <iers were prosperous, shearers’ tates hr.d been increased from time to time, in sympathy with farmers’ increasing returns, and that there had been, in effect,. a system of profit-sharing. But the period of prosperity was over, the sheep-farmer was carrying on with vanishing profits, in many cases witti actual losses. There was then on pros-rv-st‘ of any material increase for some time in the price of New Zealand wool, and it was therefore, "just and reas enable that the shearers and shedhands should be awarded the t9'>l r/.tes, but with an increase to meet the additional cost of living, and in accordance with the improved standard of living, similar to that granted to other workers of similar grades between 1901 and 1921.” Having stated so definitely the principles which it had adopted, the Court proceeded to make an Award to shearers of 30s. a hundred, plus bonuses of 2s 2d. a day, less 20 per cent. >f the t. taj (rates plus bonus), which meant roughly, 245. a hundred, with correspendirig rates for shed-hands. “This.'’ the memorandum stated,” will leave the ai erage shearer or shed-hand with his relative increase on the same scab: as workers in other industries, as well .as giving him a reasonable allowance to meet the increased cost of travelling and maintenance while travelling from station to station.’’ Summarised in brief, this memorandum of the Court stated that the workers had to be protected, and that thev were therefore awarded rates • which, after full allowance had been made for the increased cost and ini. proved standard of living, enabled them fully to maintain the average standard of other workers in similar grades of occupation. In effect, the Court acted in accordance with what had come to be regarded as its established principle, the maintenance oi award rates, in accordance with the cost of living. Circumstances made the protection of employers incompatible with the protection of workers, and the Court decided to protect the workers, at the employers’ expense. Had the Court adopted an opposite principle, and made its award in accordance with the condition of the industry, then its award would not have been above 15s. a hundred, for wool prices were less than half their level of 1920, when shearing rates were 30s. In October, 1922, a further award was made, and practically the same award rate was maintained, 245. a hundred. In a brief memorandum, the Court repeated that the award of the year before, now maintained with slight alterations, had brought the shearers '“into the same position tn regard to other workers as in 1914.” A further award was made ”n September, 1923, to remain in operation until April, 1926, when rates were fixed on the basis of 25s a hundred. In making this award, the Court stated that it had given the matter verv careful consideration from every point of view, and had stabilised wages and conditions for three years. This award was accepted bv all members of the Court without dissent, and the movement of the cost of living figures since has shown that it was idvantageous to the workers. ' , From this review of recent awards, it is fair to conclude that:— (1) It is the established practice of the Court to protect the workers against any reduction in standard of living. (2) The shearers and shed-hands shared in the prosperity of the sheep-farming industry when that industry was prosperous. (3) They did not share in the depression when the industry was greatly depressed, because the Court’s award took care to maintain their standard. (4) The sheepfarmers, who had shared their prosperity with the workers when prosperous, had to bear the whole burden of depression alone when their industry was depressed. 11. Shearers’ Rates and the Cost of Living. The principle, therefore, upon which the Court has based its awards, has been that of maintaining the workers’ stanJard. The slieepfarmers have accepted this principle, and have loyally compiled with the awards of the Court, even though it meant hardship to them. They arc still content to accept that ' same principle, even though it still operates against them to some extent. They expect to see the Court adhere to its established practice, and to make an award that Will maintain the workers’ standard of living as laid down in the Court’s memorandum of 1921. For that year, 1921,. the Government Statistician’s index number of retail prices—the “all groups” index abstract of statis-tics-stood at 1774. It has varied very little, not more than lj per cent., during 1921, 1925, and 1926, and it stood at 1624 in February, 1926, the latest date of publication. Thus the cost of living, according to the acceptel official index, is 81 per cent, lower than in 1921, when the Court laid down ih« principles of its award. The

rate of pay is roughly Is. a hundred, or about 4 per cent, higher than under the award of 1921. Since 1921, therefore, the cost of living has fallen in the ratio of 100, 91|) the rate of pay has risen in the ratio of 100, 104; the purchasing power of the workers’ present rates, compared with the purchasing power of their 1921 rates, has therefore improved in the ratio of 911, 104, or 13} per cent. The employers are content that they should retain this advantage, and that award rates should remain as at present. 111. Is the Industry Prosperous?' The only possible ground on which a claim for rates higher than this might be made is that the sheepfarming industry is again in a very prosperous condition, and that workers, despite the fact that they did not share in its depression, are entitled to share again in its prosperity. Such a claim will / not bear investigation. _ Wool prices have certainly risen since the abnormal slump of 1921; they were fairly high in the 1923-24 season, higher in 1924-25. But they have fallen very heavily since then, and there, appears now but little prospect of any appreciable rise in the near future. A brief survey of the facts will provide ample evidence that the conditions of the wool-producing. industry generally, since the slump in prices of 1920, have been decidedly unfavourable to prosperity, and that, relative to the average of the Dominion’s industries, and particularly to ’■the workers, the -wool producers are considerably worse off than in 1924. It will make the position clearer to compare several index numbers of prices in 1914 and in the post-war years. In the following tables the Government Statistician’s index numbers are used, (1) of the export price of wool, (2) of wholesale prices, which may be taken as an indication of changes in farm costs, and (3) of the all groups retail price index, which may serve to indicate the changes in wages which follow this index: —

(Including April, 1500.) *For 1926 the export price given for wool is the average of the monthly indexes from October to March in the 1925-26 export season as far as figures are available; the wholesale price index is that for the first' quarter of 1926; and the retail price index is that .published . for the quarter ended February, 1926. These figures will be made clearer and more rapidly comparable if they are all reduced to a base of 1914 equal 100. They are then ‘as follows, percentages being given to the nearest whole number:—

During the six years. 1921-26 inclusive, the index number of wool prices, adjusted to base 1911, equals JOO, has fluctuated between 78 and 204. The average of the price indexes for these six years is 133. This figure gives the fairest indication of the increase in prices over the post-war period. They include the post-war slump prices, the exceptional boom prices of 1924-25, and the fall in 1925-26, which may—we hope it won't—be carried still farther. But they show’ clearly and conclusively that on average over these six years, wqol prices have been only 33 per cent, above their 1914 level. He would be a rash man who would speculate on wool prices ’ being much higher than this in the near future. Our chief market, Britain, is passing through a severe depression, rendered more acute by . the recent disastrous general strike, which, makes the future even more difficult to forecast than before; and Britain’s export industries including the woollen industry, are even more depressed than the average. Germany, too, is passing through depression, and ' had two millions unemployed at the beginning of this year. France and Belgium having serious trouble with their depreciated exchanges, which might well liirdet their buying of our wool. Our European markets are thus in a hazardous condition, and the United States, which normally taken but little of out wool, has also a high protective tariff against us. All these things considered, the prospects for next season's wool prices are not bridit. and the m-ernce price of ; the fast six years, 33 per cent, above 1914 prices, appears to be the safest basis for calculations regarding the -future. IV—Costs and Prices. But the prosperity of any industry depends not on the price of its produce alone, but on the mat gin between its prices and its costs. 1 have shown that prices have averaged, over six years,, 33 per cent, above pre-war rates. One can only estimate what the increase in costs has been, but it has been very heavy. All farm costs have risen with the general rise in prices: wages, rations, repairs, and depreciation, stock, seed, manures, implements, the cost of fencing, draining, and other improvements, interest, taxes, and rates all have increased. Further, many of the sheepfarmers on large holdings have pastoral leases which have been revalued since 1914, and their rents, have been raised very considerably. Again, there have been very great changes of ownership during recent years. In 1923 and 1924, out of 85,000 rural holdings in New Zealand, 16,700 changed hands (1926 Year Book, p. 389). At this rate, most of the land in the Dominion changes hands on the average every ten years, and this rate was greatly exceeded in the boom years immedi- v ately after the war. , It follows that there are now, in all probability, comparatively few farmers farming the land they held in the years of lowland values before the war, and the majority are fanning land in which is invested the much larger amount of capital necessitated by the high post war values. Many of the farmers who profited most by the high prices, and consequently high land values, of 1919 and 1920, are now in retirement, and but little interested in the fortunes of the wool industry, while others are back tm the fat ms with added liabilities. Many of those most directly concerned in these fortunes are labouring tinder the burden of high prices paid for land, heavy mortgages in high interest rates, high costs, and low returns. Further, as was shown in the memorandum of the Court attached to the 1921. award, the production of wool is by no means confined to wealthy sheep-farmers; the great majority are comparatively poor, and struggling hard to make their farms pay. That the increase in the costs of wool production has been considerable there can lie no doubt, but it is in’possible to estimate it with oorf-ri nccuracv. All things considered, the ; ncreaseH prices which many producers have paid for their land, as well as the

costs of current production, the Government Statistician’s index number of wholesale prices furnishes perhaps the best available indication of what this increase in costs has been. That index number stands in the first quarter of 1926 at 167 (when equated to 100 in 1914), and it has not been lower than this since it passed its peak in 1920. It is fair then to assume that on average farmers’ costs of production have increased about 67 per cent, since 1914; the actual increase may be greater than this; it cannot possibly be very much less, for the average of all prices has increased to this extent, wages, on average, about 62 per cent., land values, which affect many producers, and other costs, in all probability quite as much. The Government Statistician’s new index number oi wholesale prices (Abstract ci Statistics, May, 1926) gives an index of prices of materials for the farming industry which shows these prices to have risen 56 per cent, above the pre-war level. This does not include building construction, which .has risen by 113 per cent. Against tin’s increase in costs, 67 per cent., or, say, two-thirds, we have to set an increase in prices of 33 per cent., or, say, one-third. The wool-producers’ costs have risen in the ratio of 3 : 5; their returns in the ratio of 3 : 4, since 1914. As closely as can be estimated, costs have risen twice as much as prices, and this must mean a considerable fall rather than a rise in the net return as compared with 1914. In many cases this reduction in the net return must be sufficient to eliminate the margin of profit altogether. I can, if necessary, submit for the Court’s inspection the confidential accounts of representative sheep farmers, which show that in many caseij in recent years the net return .has been insufficient to pay current interest rates on capital invested and has left no return for management or for profit. These facts are surely sufficient .to show that instead of enjoying prosperity, the industry is being -hard squeezed between a lower millstone of'high.costs and an upper one of low returns. V. Wage Rates and Employment. It was shown in the Court's memorandum attached to the 1921 award that in bad times many of the farmers shear for one another, and that there is therefore less work available for shearers. Many farmers are forced to do this when-the cost of shearing becomes considerable. On a basis of 255. a hundred, the price for shearing by contract, which includes all hands and rations, but not lodging (supplied by the farmer) is from £4 2s. 6d to £4 17s. 6d. a hundred, or an average of £4 10s. Every increase in shearing rates, with corresponding increases for shed-hands, etc., increases this figure proportionately. On a Dominion flock of 24,000,000, an ir.ciease of 2s. fid. a hundred to shearers means £30,000. The ratio of shearers’ pay, to the total pay of shearers, shed hands, etc., is 255. to 905.; and to estimate the total increased cost to the farmer of an extra 2s. 6d. a hundred Io shearers, £30,000 must be increased in this ratio, which makes it £lOB,OOO. It is, therefore, true to say that every 2s. 6d. a hundred for shearers means, in general, an increased cost of £190,000 or more to the sheepfarmers, and it is little wonder that less work is offered when rates are increased. Many farmers are hard put to pay present rates, and simply cannot afford to pay more. With the heavy fall that has occurred in export prices over the last season, and the unfavourable trade balance that has resulted, some degree of depression and unemployment in the near future is certain. Unemployment in the Dominion always means that many men leave the town to seek temporary work in the country. The farmers’ ability to provide employment varies inversely with the rates they have to pay. There are many things requiring to be done around a farm which the farmers can profitably get done if the labour cost is reasonably low, but which can be done at a loss to the farmers if the labour cost -be high. For the farmer is always faced with the (act that his is an unsheltered industry, and be cannot possibly pass on increased cost or increased prices as can so many of the city industries. This is of importance at the present time owing to the fact that shearing rates awarded by the Court affect indirectly the rates asked for other kinds of farm labour. High shearing rates take men away from more or less permanent jobs on farms to go shearing; high rates, therefore,, increase the supply. and reduce the demand for shearers’ labour, and thereby increase unemployment and broken time. Lower rates conversely will induce fewer men to give up other jobs to go shearing, and will increase the demand;, for shearers and other farm labour as well, so tending to lessen the unemployment with which we are threatened. _ The following figures from the Statistics of Agricultural and Pastoral Production, 1924-25, show how real is this fluctuation in pastoral employment, which here excludes dairying. Male Hands employed on holdings, used prinqipally for pastoral purposes. (To nearest hundred.) 1915-16 44,800 1917-13 46,500 J 919-20 49,600 1921-22 39,400 1923- • 41,200 1924- 41,300 When the industry was prosperous in 1919-20, it employed 49,600 hands. Two years later, iji the slump, more than 10,000 of these had gone. Less than two thousand have been takeu on since, and the numbers employed are still considerably below those of the war years, although ' labour w.as scarce then. This fall in the numbers of hands employed sheds considerable'light on the supposed prosperity of the slieepowners. It is my duty in the interests of employers to stress the fact that freedom of contract' in the primary industries is the only safety-valve for the whole of our Arbitration Court system. This was amply demonstrated during the slump period, when hundreds of men discharged from the various secondary industries were sent into the country during the period of depression, engaged on work such as rabbitting, scrub-cutting, draining, etc., work which would have been unprofitable under award rates of pay; but I would point out that these men, although working possibly for from £1 tp 30s. per week, .were being housed and fed, and the married then among them were able to .supplement their small savings by sending their earnings into town in order to keep the “wolf from the door” on behalf of their wives and families, until times improved. Had the primary producers been under hard and fast award rates for the various classes of farm labour, then it would have been impossible for farmers to have employed them, as was the case in the town industries, with the inevitable result that hundreds of hungry families would have had to be provided for within the limits of the various cities in the Dominion, in addition to those who had actually received charitable aid at that time, and the difficulties of the situation would have been greatlv multiplied.

I would stress the point that no method of affording adequate protection to the employer in the primary industries or the unsheltered trades has vet been devised, and it would appear to be impossible to do so, dependent as we are in a country such as New Zealand on world's parity values for our produce. The question mav be raised that b Is nossible to fix an naricHltural wnqe in Great Britain, and why not in New

Zealand? The answer is that it is possible for the Wages Board in Great Britain in conjunction with the Government to give a measure of protection to the employer in Great Britain who grows his foodstuffs, etc., purely for home consumption. New Zealand is unfortunately unable to do this so far as it affects the primary producers, but w.e recognise that this is possible to a certain extent in the case of the sheltered industries or those producing solely for home consumption. The extension of the provisions of the Arbitration Act as directly applied to labour which becomes a direct charge on the primary producing capacity of the land, must prove to be merely an additional direct tax on the land for primary production which is already, as I trust I have clearly shown, taxed beyond a sound economic point. The conditions of life as between the country and the city are so utterly dissimilar that it has come to be recognised that industrial conditions as affecting the city worker have no appli-' cation to the man working on the land. VI. Conclusion. From the foregoing survey of rates of pay for shearers and shed-hands and of the fortunes of the wool industry in recent years, the following conclusion may be fairly drawn: — (a) It has been the practice of the Court to award such rates as will protect fully the workers’ standard of living. That standard of living has been fully maintained by rates paid in the sheep-owning industry, despite the severe depression through which the industry passed in 1921-22, and from the effects of which it is still suffering. The present rates of pay are amply sufficient to maintain the standard of living at the present price level. (b) No claim that the prosperit ■ of the industry is such as to warrant an increase in rates can be su,.s.aiiiiaied. Average wool prices during the years 1921-26 inclusive are only 33 per cent, above 1914 prices; .1925-26 prices are only 40 per cent, above that level. As nearly as can be estimated, me costs of producing wool have risen about 67 per cent, above costs in 1914. Consequently the net return to many farmers, particularly those who bought land at high prices, is below the 1914 level, ana the industry as a whole, instead of being prosperous, has not yet recovered from the postwar depression. (c) The state of the industry is reflected in the considerable fall in the numbers now employed, compared either with the war years or with the prosperity period of 1919-20. It will probably be necessary, in view of ths present threat of some general depression, for the country to absorb a considerable number of unemployed from the towns in the near future. Higher rates of pay for any type of farm labour tend to lead to higher rates for other types, and higher rates will necessarily decrease the amount of employment available, s We believe this to be a fair summary of the facts, and for these reasons we <’onclt.de that justice will be done to both parties by the acceptance of the rates of pay laid down in our proposals for the '.award. Re Demands for Altered Conditions. Dealing with the claims for altered working conditions, as separate from my general statement of the case, and taking them in the order as set out in the demands by the workers’ representatives, we come first to the claim fox an alteration in hours, with a view to shortening the working day of the shearer. This matter was fully dealt with by the Court on a previous occasion, and I submit that no additional evidence has been brought forward that would justify the Court in departing from its previous decision in this'connection. There can be no question that it is not possible to bring factory conditions into operation, when dealing with live stock on the farm, more particularly ■:i hill country of any size, where fairly large mobs of ewe's and lambs and other sheep have to be brought some distance to and from the sheds. It will be obvious that the point of view expressed in support of this demand is one which has been prompted solely from the point of view of the man who performs the one operation, viz., the removal of the wool from the sheep’s back, and nothing else; but there are so many matters contingent to that, such as climatic conditions, holding capacity, individual judgment of shepherds, and many other contingencies which arise in actual, practice, which could never be satisfactorily laid down on a flat basis of procedure under an Award of the Court. Any practical sheep-farmer, with the exception, of course, of those small farms where the sheep are always handy to the shed, will confirm this statement; and I trust that the Court will not depart from its previous decision in connection with hours of work which was given after hearing exhaustive evidence on this point. These remarks apply also to the fiveminute bell, which was exhaustively dealt with in evidence bv Mr. Grayndler before the Court, in 1922, and disallowed. With regard to the claim for Increased rates of pay: This has been fully dealt with in my general statement. The only point ! wish to stress before the Court is fhat the Court will have on its records ■ evidence given by shearers themselves (that they would rather shear Merino sheep than Corriedales, and the heavier breeds, on account of their lighter handling and softer cutting. In manv cases, as has already been stated before the Court on previous occasions by the shearers themselves, additional or bonus rates have been paid by the sheepowners to meet the position equitably where owing to the class of country on which the sheep were running making the cutting gritty and hard, bonus rates have been paid, in addition to the providing by the employer of a certain number of pairs of shears by agreement between the parties. I submit that this is much the better plan than that an alteration in the incidence of payment should be made, which, in the opinion of the employers, will lead to endless argument and confusion. There can be no foundation for a demand for increased rates when shear, ers can earn rates of pay as shown by the tally sheets which will be submitted, and I would point out also, that when the Court fixed its weekly tally of 450 sheep as the basis for its calculations, that the evidence of the shearers themselves was used by the Court equally with that of the employers, and the great bulk of the evidence given by the shearers at that time was with reference to shearing tallies made on high country runs in Merino sheep, and by hand. The Court averaged all these tallies, including the Merinos shorn under adverse conditions, and I submit that the claims of the workers’ representatives can only be legitimately met by a readjustment of existing rates, as fixed by the Court, providing for slight decreasing of the amount paid for all other than Merino sheep, and adding the difference to the price paid for Merinos; and I would point out that this readjustment would involve only a slight reduction per 100 to the shearers in the so-called easiet grades of sheep, as there are not more than 6 per cent, of Merino sheep in New Zealand, so the reduction would require to be made over 94 per cent, in order to provide the necessary additional amount to 6 per cent, of sheep shorn ns Merinos. No shearer shears one class only, therefore the average position is fairly met. This applies equally to. the question of blade and JWdflns? was

given before the Court and tallies submitted by both sides including both blade and machine. Naturally, workers stressed the point that a blade man could only do so many :heep, and the Court took into account that evidence when fixing its basis of a weekly tally. The fact that in the demand for lost time the workers’ representatives claim 30s. per day, and in the rates of pay for rations, 6s. per 100, is an admission that the shearers value themselves, under the present conditions, at 30s. per day and found, or £9 per week.

The demand being made for fares can also be included as a demand for increased rates of pay, as this has been fully allowed for by the Court when fixing the present rate. In other words, the shearers’ tepresentatives are asking that they should be paid twice. The Court states clearly in its memorandum as follows: “To take a most conservative estimate, making a generous allowance for wet weather and time lost in travelling between stations, an average shearer shears "450 sheep per week.” Then towards the end of the memorandum to the 1921-22 award the Court states, after fixing rates on the basis referred to in my general statement: “This will leave the average shearer or rhed-hand with his relative increase on the same scale as workers in other industries, as well as giving him a reasonable allowance to meet the increased cost of travelling and maintenance while travelling from station to station.”

I submit, Your Honour, that the points raised in the demands which I have grouped under the head “Rates of Pay” are all fully answered, and payment accounted for in the present award rates, the Court itself having made it quite clear that the questions of fares, travelling and lost time, merinos as against other breeds . of sheep, and machine shearing as against blade shearing, and provision of tools, had been already fully allowed for, and that the shearer was placed on the same footing as other award workers of a similar grade in 1921-22. The question of supply of grindstones and provisions of tools is also no new one (Clauses 11, 12, a, b, and c, of demands). Full investigation was made by the Court in this connectiofl in 1921, and the price of combs and cutters and blade shears was ascertained, and the average number of sheep they would shear was taken from the evidence of the shearers themselves- by the Court, and allowance made for these costs by the Court when fixing rates. Special inquiries were _ made by the Court as to shearers being allowed to use their own hand pieces, if desiring to do so; and the Court could not see its way to depart from the provisions of the’ old award with regard to payment for combs and cutters by the shearers. The new penalty clauses introduced in the demands (13, a and b), could not be equitably embodied in an award. It will be noted that the Clause A allows the workers an opportunity to explain his absence, but there is no such opportunity given by the employer, although it is inconceivable that any sheepowner would deliberately and without good and sufficient reason, keep his shearers and shed-hands idle after the day appointed to start. Clause 19, limitation of agreement as proposed, would result in severe hardship to employers, and the Court has repeatedly recognised this in the past by refusing to alter the clause as set out in the existing award. The union ticket clause 24 is, in the opinion of the employers, not required and of no value to them. No man on being engaged is asked whether or not he is a member of the union. It will be seen that the employers have no means of knowing whether a man is a union member or not. The employer would simply have to take his word; in any case, he would, naturally, only present his union ticket at the last moment, and this would not prevent him booking up for other sheds as well. Rations: Clause 25 is exactly similar to the demand made on previous occasions, and no additional evidence has been brought forward that will warrant the Court in departing from its previous decision. Lost Time: Clause 28, through breakage of machinery, is also another of Mr. Grayndler’s clauses submitted in 1922, and I submit that no evidence has been . brought forward of shearers having suffered from this cause. Clauses 29 and 30: Shearing on Sundays, Christmas Day, and holidays, as set out, will, if included in the award, operate to the detriment of the workers themselves more especially in the cases of back country runs, where exceptionally wet conditions have to be dealt with. It would in many cases be a far more Christian act to clean up a cutout on Sunday morning than to take the risk of further delay to the whole gang of men under these conditions, apart altogether from the question of the welfare of the stock. The employers do not suggest that shearing should be permitted no Sundays or Christmas Day, as a general rule, but only to meet extraordinary emergency.

Clause 31 will depend, as was the case when it was previously before the Court, on whether the hours of work are altered. In my experience, trouble is often caused between the men and the cook even under the nine o'clock clause. Nine o’clock should be late enough under the ordinary shearing conditions, and there is no additional reason given for any change. Clause 32 we have already agreed to arrange for apart from the award and if possible by legislation being amended to meet the points raised. Clause 34, regarding sheep to be flagged, bristles with difficulties, and if inserted in the award will, in the opinion of the employers, create more difficulties than, it w'ill temedy. The old question of when a sheep is daggy will again be raised and lead to endless controversy and trouble. The practical, application of this clause will create bitter feeling if laid down in a hard and fast way, such' as suggested in the demands. Mr. Cook has already indicated a line of action he would follow in a case of badly daggy sheep, but it is against the interests of the sheepowners to allow their sheep to come on to the board in a state which would war rant-the action suggested by Mr. Cook. Clause 35,. preference to unionists, cannot be given effect to in this iuaustry, and would operate most un justly to small farmers and working men, who have to eke out their incomes from the farm by shearing locally. . In many cases an employer has to pick up his shearers at short notice, once the first sheds have started, and he could have no means of knowing away out in the country, whether a man engaged probably by wire or over the 'phone was a union member or not. The Court has not been able to see Its way to include this clause in the past when applied for, and no additional reason has been put forward which would j'ustifv its inclusion. The shearers’ representatives have again raised the question of an award for crutching. Conditions have , not altered in tl*e slightest degree since May, 1921, when it was conclusively shown to the satisfaction of the Court that it would be unfair to both employers and workers to fix a flat rate for crutching. The Court expressed the opinion that the difficulty, nrigtt. be got over by means of a classification, but stated that it had not the necessary material to enable it to make this classification. All that lias been attempted by the workers' representatives before the Court yesterday has been to endeavour to justify two flat rates instead of one, without am regard to the still unsolved difficulties of tbc variations in soils, feed, '-liruatic

and weather conditions, and above all, varying classes and breeds of sheep, and the nature of the crutching re-' quired by the owner. No attempt has been made to tackle the more difficult side of this question, and in the opinion of the employers, no satisfactory solution can be found by the fixing of a flat rate for all districts and classes of sheep. > Evidence given before the Court was with respect to the crutching of halfbred sheep, and one witness mentioned ewes heavy in lamb, and the evidence of tills witness alone was in the employers’ opinion a vindication of their attitude when dealing with this matter on previous occasions. I submit that the fixing of a flat rate for crutching is impracticable of application without serious injustice being done to the employers. Crutching is unlike the operation of shearing, which is practically the same throughout New Zealand. There are so many factors that enter into the question of crutching as against shearing, that for the Court’s information I will mention a few reasons why, in the opinion of the employers, an award for crutchers would be impracticable. In the first place there is a great diversity of opinion among sheepfarmers as to the amount of wool to be taken off by the crutchets. Some sheepowners stipulate that the sheep must be shorn well up the belly, and for a considerable distance back over the tail of the sheep, in addition to cleaning the hocks, etc., while others maintain it is unnecessary »to do more than just clean the wool from the immediate vicinity of the udder and tail. In the first instance the amount of labour involved is considerably greater than in the latter, and it would be manifestly unfair for the Court to fix a flat rate when the amount of work required varies so greatly. The evidence given 'by employers which I would point ■ out was absolutely unshaken and was corroborated by the men themselves, went to show that this was the case.

The kind of season being experienced is another factor that has. to be reckoned with in this connection—for instance, in a season with plenty of rain and a consequent flush of green feed, the sheep become very dirty, and the labour required to flush them properly is heavier and out of all proportion to that in a dry season. Then, again, the class of country on which the sheep are run will make a great difference in the amount of labour required. On heavy land, with a strong growth of feed, the tendency is for the sheep to become very dirty compared with sheep being run on light land or hill country with tussock feed, so that even in an ordinary season there is a wide margin between the values of crutching on different classes of land. What I am endeavouring to convey to the Court is that the condition of the sheep and the consequent labour required varies according to both the class of farm, the kind of season being experienced, and the class of sheep erutched. I would therefore suggest that on account of the diversity of requirements on almost every farm, that the question of payment, when it is found necessary to employ extra crutcners should be left a matter of arrangement between the men and the employers. The employment of outside crutchers is only necessary in a minority of cases. The rate for piecework crutching that has been paid in recent years has proved to be adequate, and this I think should go to show that the workers have been fairly met and that there is no question of victimisation of the workers in this respect and that it would be manifestly unfair to make the rate paid for the heavier class of work apply to all conditions.

The matter has been very fully, gone into by the various Sheepowners’ Unions throughout the Dominion, and representatives of these unions attended a conference in Wellington especially called to consider this question, when it was unanimously agreed that there was no necessity for an award. Owing to the great diversity of conditions, and also the short days and broken weather usually experienced at the time of the year when this class of work is done, an award was considered both unnecessary and impracticable.

It is' the practice of most places to utilise the permanent hands already on the place to do this work, and it is treated as part of the ordinary routine work of the place. It is not skilled work in any sense, and any farm hand is quite competent to do the crutching. This work is usually done in the slack season, and at a time when there is a gap in the ordinary routine of sheep work, and if an award is made the tendency will be to upset the smooth working of the ordinary sheep farm. As regards shed hands for crutching, it was clearly shown that in many districts none are required outside the ordinary yearly hands, one man being easily able to look after the whole operation of crutching. This tendency to a multiplication of restrictions on the 'employment of workers, and the excessive demands made on em-ployers,-in this industry, irrespective of whether the actual value of the labour employed is in proportion to 'the wages demanded or not, can in the end only be disastrous to both the industry and the worker himself. For instance, in the case of crutching, if a man has to pay more than a certain price for this work, it will not be done, as it is not absolutely necessary work (except in a few cases), and this, of course, may result in unemployment. We therefore beg to submit that, taking into consideration the fact that this work is part of the yearly routine of the farm and that the special Court which investigated the question of the advisability of an award being made for farm labourers generally in 1908 gave its decision against an award being made, that it would not be in the best interests of either the industry or the men employed that an award ■ for this class of labour should be made, or that this particular work should be made the subject of special rates of pay, any more than that of any other of the operations connected with farming. It is therefore submitted that it is impossible for an award rate to be fixed to equitably govern all the conditions met with. Re Term of Award.—A three years’ term will be in the interest of men themselves, as has been the case since 1923, and the tendency is to stabilise conditions to the advantage of all concerned. Concluding Statement. On behalf of the employers, I beg to submit that there is. no case for me to answer. No additional evidence has been brought before the Court to that which was given on the previous occasion, when this dispute was before the Court in 1923, and I wish to enter a strong protest, on behalf of the trovers, against the continual bringing forward of demands for alteration of conditions and rates of pay, which are unsupported by evidence additional to that which has previously been placed before the Court. The position is analogous to that of a man charged before a Judge of the Supreme Court with an offence, and who has been acquitted on the evidence and who is again brought before a subsequent sitting of the same Court with the same Judge, on the same charge, and the'Court requested to rehear the case on exactly the same evidence. This Court has already, on several previous occasions, dealt with the application by the workers for similar alterations of conditions to those now being asked for, and on the evidence submitted, and after full investigation, has definitely refused to depart from the conditions of work as set out in the present award, conditions which bav« bees proved te be

satisfactory in operation over a long period of years, and which have been embodied in past awards by agreement between the parties. The same remarks will apply with equal force to the demands for increased rates of pay. No evidence has been brought forward which can warrant this Court in departing from its previous decisions, and the principles expressed by His Honour, Judge Sim, in the Painter’s Dispute (see Vol. X, Book of Awards, page 192), where it is laid down, that “Where an industry has been before the Court two.or three times, and its conditions investigated the last award should be treated as finally settling these conditions, and any alteration can only be made on clear and definite proof that there has been a change in circumstances since that award was made.” These observations may be taken as applying generally to all the industries (with perhaps one or two exceptions) in connection with which the Court has made two or three successive awards. "Much expense and disappointment will be avoided if the executives of unions will ponder well what we have said, and if before originating a dispute, they will ascertain that there is some definite and reasonable ground for asking for an alteration in the terms of an existing award, and will recognise that without some such ground it is useless to ask for any alteration. It is idle to ask, as many unions do, for an increase in the wages fixed by an existing award, and to have nothing better to offer in support of the application than the evidence of a number of workers who are prepared to say that, in their opinion, the wages asked for are reasonable. To rely on evidence of that kind is to confess that the union has been unable to find anything in the. shape of fact or argument to support its. case.” This principle has been consistently upheld bv Mr. Judge Stringer and by Your Honour yourself, since you have presided over this Court, and holds good to-day; and I submit that the present claims are an attempt to stultify the previous decisions of this Court, and are a reflection on the integrity of those decisions, and the intelligence of the Court.

Price Indexes (Yearly). Export All All Groups Price Wholesale Retail of Wool Prices Prices 1914 1089 1077 1000 1920 / 1809 2185 1776 1921 848 2071 1774 1922 939 1832 1597 1923 ; 1277 1803 1580 1924 ! 1906 1856 1604 1925 2233 1.908 1622 1926* 1510 1803 1624

Wool Prices Wholesale Prices Retail Prices 1914 100 100 100 1920 ...... 166 203’ 178 1921 . 78 192 ' 177 1922 . 86 170 160 1923 117 167 158 1921 175 172 160 1925 204 168 162 1920 . 140 167 102