SHEARERS’ DISPUTE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 232, 13 September 1922, Page 2

SHEARERS’ DISPUTE.

ARGUMENT IN ARBITRATION. THE EMPLOYERS’ CLAIMS. 20/- AND NON-PREFERENCE. Wellington, Sept. 12. Employment in the shearing industry was discussed before Mr. Justice Frazer and his colleagues in the Arbitration Court to-day upon the citation of the Shearers’ and Shefl Hands’ Federation to support their claim to improved conditions and the issue of a Dominion award for the industry. Mr. W. H. Nicholson, secretary of the N.Z. Sheepowners’ and Farmers’ Federation, and Mr. W. Cecil Prime, secretary of the Sheepowners’ Association in Hawke’s Bay and Poverty Bay, appeared on behalf of the emplayers, and Mr. C. Grayndler for the Shearers’ Association. As regards conditions the Sheepowners’ Federation offered a renewal of the general terms of the existing award with an alteration of rates of pay—--20/ -per 100 for sheep and 17/6 for lambs. The counter demand of the union was for 30/- per 100 for both sheep and lambs, whether shorn by liand or by machine, with the addition of rations or an additional allowance of 5/- per 100. In the preliminary discussion it was agreed that a Dominion award would be acceptable to both sides. His Honour intimated that separate awards would be simultaneously made for the several districts of the Dominion in identical terms in all cases. Mr. Nicholson, in his opening address, submitted that the present state of the industry did not warrant a higher rate of pay than that in 1917. The average price of wool in New Zealand to-day. was more than 2d per lb. gross less than in pre-war times. He claimed that at £1 per 100 a shearer earned a fair wage as compared with other award workers —£4 10/- per week and found throughout the season. From present economic conditions it must be evident that the workers equally with the employers must expect a reduced wage ana it necessary a standard of living in accordance with the position oi the industry in which they were engaged, the sheepowner had no means or passing on his charges and must depend on tne world’s markets for the prices of his product aud if that labour with other charges was above the oversea price there could be only one result unless a reduction ot costs were made. As rates had in the past been based upon tne condition of the industry and wages hud risen accordingly, lie urged that it must now be right to lower the rate of wages in proportion to the fall in wool values. Mr. W. C. Prime, who undertook the general conduct of the sheepowners’ case, addressed the court at some length, 'there was, ho suid, a very strong feeling among farmers that the relief given to them by the court last year was less than the condition of the industry warranted. Probably the court was then influenced by the hope that the position of the industry would materially improve. That hope, however, had not been realised. In spite of all the reports of increased prices in the wool market the net return for Hawke’s Bay growers was still very considerably less than a payable price. Even if the market prices were on a par with pre-war returns the net return to the grower would be much less than formerly owing to the greatly increased charges, ot which shearing was a very considerable item. The court’s average tally, 450 sheep per week at £1 per 100, would be equal to £4 10/- per week, which the allowance for rations brought up to £5 18/- per week. The highest rate under the court’s scale fors emi-skilled labour was equivalent to £4 18/- per week with no allowance for board and lodging. As regards shed hands Mr. Prime submitted that the rates should be reduced by a greater amount than the 5/- of the recent reduction order. The union’s counter demand for a 44liour week was impracticable. Shortening of hours would involve lengthening of the season with disastrous results in country where utuwai (biddy-biddy) was a source of trouble. The demand lor a shearing rate of 30/- per 100 was preposterous. A reasonably competent worker could make good wages at the rate offered by the employers. With regard to the claim for preference to unionists and the right of union agents to interview employers, Mr. Prime asserted that the attitude of the union officers during the last season was such that the union lost all claim to any preference whatever or right to have access to employers’ premises during shearing. The no discrimination clause had worked quite satisfactorily in the past and there was no reason tor departing from it unless in the direction of giving the employer absolute freedom of engagement.

Several witnesses were called to show the prices realised for the East Coast and Canterbury wool in the past season.

On the part of the union evidence was called with the view of showing that the court’s estimate of 450 sheep per week as the average tally of a shearer was unduly high. In the course of examination of a half-caste shearer Mr. Grayndler suggested that threats had been made to native shearers in Hawke’s Bay—intimidation, Mr. Grayndler called it—that unless they were prepared to shear on the farmers’ terms they would not be given employment in future. The witness said it was true that the Maoris were forming a separate shearers’ union antagonistic to union under the auspices of the New Zealand Workers’ Federation and favourable to the terms offered by the employers. The president of that new union, he said, was a sheepowner and the secretary was riot a worker, but an independent sort of fellow. “We are not concerned with questions of that kind,” said His Honour. “What does concern us is the question of what is a reasonable rate and what are reasonable conditions for work done by shearers.” After further evidence the court reserved its decision.