THE NEARBY FARMER

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 151, 29 June 1938, Page 22

THE NEARBY FARMER

SELLING OF MILK

ROUNDSMAN OR FARM

LABOURER?

An industrial dispute between private (as opposed to municipal) venders of milk within a twenty-mile radius of Wellington and the employees was heard before the Second Court of Arbitration yesterday. The employers applied for a new award covering wages and conditions for their employees.

Mr. Justice Hunter presided, and with him were Messrs. A. W. Croskery (workers' representative) and V. Duff (employers' representative).

Mr. W. J. Mountjoy appeared for the applicant employers, and Mr. R. J. Reardon for the workers.

In his statement, Mr. Mountjoy said that the application was made by the nearby farmers to obtain some relief from the difficult terms and conditions contained in an old award which had for many years been honoured more in the breach than the observance. The Union of Workers did not represent the employees, who were farm-hands delivering milk, in conjunction with other duties. The nearby farmers were restricted by the Wellington City MilkSupply Amendment Act, 1926, which gave power to . the council to control the nearby farmers.

The nearby farmers were not permitted to sell milk not produced at

their own dairies or on their own farms. Every person holding a licence had to sell the milk and cream himself or through a servant employed and engaged by him alone. He was restricted also from purchasing milk from any person or firm other than the City Council except in case of emergency, when he was not permitted to purchase for a longer period than 14 days or in larger quantities pef day than five gallons. After three breaches, the council had the power of cancelling his licence.

He was restricted in effect to farming on the rugged hills surrounding the city, which provided poor grazing. It was necessary to supply large quantities of winter feed for the cows. Hence it was not possible for him to employ workers solely as milk roundsmen. The employees were in fact farm labourers who delivered milk for a small portion of their time. Thus they should be covered by the Agricultural Workers' Act. OBSOLETE AWARD. The award which was held to be binding on the employees was an award which was really made to apply to the Wellington City Council prior to the council having a separate award for its workers. Some little consideration was given to the nearby farmer in the 1925 award. He quoted the Hon. H. T. Armstrong as proof that the legislators wished that workers on dairy farms should be brought under the Agricultural Workers' Act, 1936. The nearby farmers were so restricted that they should not be looked on as milk venders in the ordinary sense, but as a very restricted class serving a very necessray public service. The City Council did not supply milk fresh from the cow. The nearby farmers were conducting a business similar to that existing in Wellington before the City Council commenced its operations as a milk vender. At the" present time, there were 78 licences issued to milk venders. Most of these farmers employ very little labour, and that in connection with the milking of cows on the'farm.

The demand for unpasteurised milk was greater than the supply, and was increasing. Many private hospitals were supplied, and the greater part of the milk purchased by the Wellington Hospital Board was obtained unpasteurised from a Haywards farm with the consent of the council. The special nature of the business made it essential that some workers should assist in the delivery of the milk. Assistants employed by private venders delivered 30 gallons per man per day, on an average, as against 80 to 111 gallons per day per man employed by the council. HUTT VALLEY VENDERS; Milk venders in the Hutt Valley had never been under the provisions of an award, and were in a somewhat different position, as they did not have to contend with the oppressive conditions met by'the nearby farmers. They supplied all the needs of the general public in Petone, Lower Hutt, and Eastbourne. The employers asked for hours to be not less than 44 weekly, spread over seven days. The cost of delivery was much greater, though the milk was sold at the same price as that of the City Council. .The area covered was also much greater, and the duties more varied on the part of private employees. The iHutt Valley milk venders asked for a wage of £4 per week dry pay for roundsmen. The nearby farmers could not pay this, because they had to purchase feed for their cattle. Thus they asked that wages should be fixed as in the Agricultural Workers' Act, 1936.

• The employers were prepared to provide board and lodging for workers on dairy farms, and" for workers who made deliveries therefrom. A holiday of not less than seven days for every twelve weeks of employment was offered, to the maximum of 28 days per year. For workers receiving a halfholiday per week, a holiday of pot less than 14 days per year was considered necessary. The employers agreed that no person under 15 years of age should deliver milk. The evidence of four witnesses for the employers was then taken. WORKERS' CASE. Mr. Reardon mentioned the two awards exiting in the Wellington area, and pointedi out that the employers in the dispute were covered by awards eighteen and thirteen years old respectively. He submitted that their age made these, awards unworthy of consideration in the making of a new award. He drew, the attention of the Court to two recent awards, the Auckland (20 mile radius) Milk Roundsmen's Award, and the Wellington City Council Milk Department Employees' Award.

The workers asked for a 40-hour, five-day week, with a weekly wage of £5. There was nothing to prevent the hours being so limited. He quoted Mr. Justice Page's remarks, where a similar application was temporarily refused in Auckland. That, however, was because of differing conditions in Auckland. In Auckland the majority of milk venders were middlemen, not dairy farmers, and the Auckland Milk Council fixed the price that the middlemen paid. The Court refused to allow increased costs by way of hours on the ground that the margin between the two prices was insufficient. The great bulk of the suppliers in Wellington were also dairy farmers, who competed at open prices with the Wellington City Council. The onus of proving impracticability I therefore fell on the employers.

Average prices over the twelve months in Wellington and Auckland showed that 12.047 d per gallon was paid to the Wellington producer, as against 11.333 d to the Auckland producer. Milk was sold to the Welling-

ton public at 6£d per quart, and to the Auckland public at between 6d and 6jd per quart. Those were the prices paid and charged (or fixed) by the Wellington Milk Department and the Auckland Milk Council respectively. The Wellington Department thus had a margin of Is 2d per gallon, and despite transport, pasteurisation, bottling, delivery, high wages, and interest on almost a £250,000 plant, it was still able to show a profit. Mr. Reardon indicated how the farmer-vender, without many of these extra costs, must be in an even better position. A COMPARISON. The hours of work in the Auckland award were 88 per fortnight, with provision that 80 would be worked in ten days and the remaining eight at an overtime rate of 3s 7d per hour. The Wellington Milk Department's week was a 40-hour six-day one. Given the same wages and conditions as provided in the council award, he would gladly accept the six-day week. The Wellington Department award provided for wages of £5 2s to £5 7s. Even supposing that £5 per week [ was granted, the employees would still be in a worse position than City Council roundsmen. He showed this by a comparative table. It appeared that the union erred on the side of moderation, and the Court might even find it necessary to make an award with wages ahead of the workers claims. . The principal disadvantage suffered by the farmer-vender was due in a large measure to his own lack of cooperation and uneconomic methods. It was up to the association of farmervenders to put its house in order. In any case, the employee should not suffer for the employer's inefficiency. The demand of double time for work on Christmas Day and Good Friday and time and a half for work done on five other holidays was more moderate than in the City Council award. An annual paid holiday of a fortnight was asked for. WAGES CLAUSES. The union's demand for full wages for anyone delivering milk was to discourage the employment of juveniles. These provisions were firmly established in existing awards. The employers' proposals were based to a major degree on the Agricultural I Workers' Act, despite the fact that the workers were substantially engaged in delivering milk. He aiked that wages should be made retrospective as from August 1, 1937, from which Hutt Valley and Eastbourne employers should be exempted. These employers met the union in the fairest possible spirit, which could not be 'said for the balance of the employers, who held oui for an agreement on the lines of the [Agricultural Workers' Act. "How could we agree to wages equal to less than half the rates then ruling for similar work in Auckland?" said Mr. Reardon. "I respectfully submit that this was merely a subterfuge to give these gentlemen the benefits of low wages for the long period .which must elapse before it would be possible to get before the Court. That period has extended for nearly twelve months, and I submit that the employers are estopped from claiming that this is not their fault, because of their unreasonable perversion of the principles of conciliation. If Mr. Mountjoy fails to show that these men are agricultural workers then his proposals are merely designed to hold up the processes of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Court has it in its power to punish such at- 1 tempts, and I ask that the Court exercise that power by making this award retrospective to August 1, 1937, on all employers except those of the Huttj Valley and Eastbourne."

Evidence was then heard, and the Court reserved its decision.