FARMERS’ UNION.

Grey River Argus, 4 February 1927, Page 2

FARMERS’ UNION.

DOMINION EXECUTIVE. AVELLINGTON, February 3. Tn reply to a statement at the Dominion Executive meeting of the Farmers’ Union, Mr D. Stewart, Acting Premier, states that stejis are being taken to put a representative of rural interests on the Rural Credits Advances Board. This will be done before the Act operate on April 1. An appointment will probably be made towards the end of this month. The President (Mr Polson) spoke at length on the position created by the inability of the Union legally to appear before the Arbitration Court, although farmers were likely to be vitally affected by increases in the wages of freezing workers. He said that In* had gone to a great deal of trouble to accumulate inform-

ation as to the position of the Union and he now found that they could not be attached as a third party. The law

did not allow them to state their case before the Court, and they could only give evidence with the consent of the freezing companies. Ho had endeavoured to come to an arrangement with the freezing companies, but Mr Milne, who was conducting their case, had leclined to do more than allow the Union to call one or two witnesses to stat' their case as concisely as possible. That Would be unsatisfactory from the farmers’ point of view. He had asked for further concessions from the companies to enable the Union to state a case, and very great pressure had been brought to bear upon the companies from a most influential quarter. As a result, Air Alilne had informed him by telephone that he would agree to the Union taking part in the proceedings., Air Polson said he asked for that in writing, but had had no comunication from Air Alilne up till his arrival at Wellington. He had then gathered (from a conversation with Air Alilne he was more anxious to have industrial peace, irrespective of what wages were paid than to protect the producers from any increase in charges that might be made. He was unable to get a clear statement as to whether the companies would allow the Union to take part. lie then saw Messrs Sanderson and Daniels, and found that despite the influential demands for assistance to the Farmers’ Union, the position had not been altered. The Union could only give evidence under the direction of the gentleman who was in charge of the case for the freezing companies. That was the position at present. It was unsatisfactory because it did not give the Union freedom of action it should have in such a big question. The Union was limited to a statement to the Court, which would weaken its case.

Air Polson suggested that a strong recommendation should bo made to the Government or an amendment of the law to enable a body which actually paid for the increases made by the Court, to have some say. (Hear, hear). Tie had relied on a clause in the amending Act, which provided that in any proceedings before the Court relating to any industry of organisation which was connected with the indusry in the locality to which the proceedings related, that organisation should be entitled to lie heard if it was considered it was likely to be affected in any way. He was informed, however, that that did not cover the Union, though he felt sure that the Legislature had cases such as theirs in mind. The whole question was one of the cost of living, and should be worked out impartially. It did seem reasonable that the farmer who has so much on his shoulders should have a proper opportunity to discuss such a. matter before the Court. Simih ir cases would occur again, and they would be powerless unless they secured an amendment of the law. How could the Court understand their position unless they were able to state how vitally they wore affected by the awards? After discussion it was resolved:— 11 That the urgent attention of the Government be drawn to the fact that Section 126 of the Arbitration Act, 1925, providing for an attachment of third parties, does not meet the case in-as-much as it does not allow producers, who are most vitally interested, to be atached as third parties in connecion with the freezing dispute, and that an amendment be asked for next session, as a matter of urgency.”