THE WELLINGTON HEARING

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 221, 24 September 1910, Page 2

THE WELLINGTON HEARING

UNION HOLDS OUT FOR 20s,

WILL IT BE FREE CONTRACT?

The shearers' dispute came before the Arbitration Court in Wellington on. Thursday (says : The ■ Dominion), with Mr Justice Sim (President) and Messrs N. Scott .and J. A. McCullough, employers' and workers representatives respectively, on the Bench. - Mr M. Laracy appeared for thp Canterbury Shearers' Union, and Mr W Pryor for the Canterbury Sheepowners' Association.

When th© case was last before the Court at Ghristchurch, Mr Laracy had stated that if the Court fixed 20s si hundred as the minimum rate for shearing, the Shearers' Federation (of which he is secretary) would advise the men not to accept engagements at that rate. In view of this statement, the Court declined to proceed with the hearing, and adjourned the case to Wellington. In thp meantime efforts were made to arrive at a settlement, the three Conciliation Commissioners sitting as an informal tribunal for the purpose, but they have not made anyrepprt. • • . Mr Pryor, re-opening the ease for the . employers yesterday, ©aid the position Was much" the same as when the Court 'at Christehurch adjourned the hearing. The employers desired "a settlement, but requested a definite understanding from the union that tho award would be complied with. He now suggested that the Canterbury and Wellington oases should be taken together. The sheepowners, and, he understood', the shearers, also wished to discuss the whole matter from a Dominion point of, view. His Honor: The shed ' hands' dis- ■ pute is not before the Court. Mr Laracy said the Commissioners were to report ,on the Canterbury case.

His Honor: Whore is their report? We have, not-got it. Mr Laraey: They were io report/ and the recommendations* were to be made into a Ddminion award. We were expecting them to, report, and so we have brought no-.witnesses here. If they have not reported, we have no option but freedom of contract., . The'Judge1: -The question now is:. Have you any objection to taking the .Canterbury an<i Wellington cases together? • ■, : . - . Mr Laraey: I would prefer iio have the Canterbury case settled first. His Honor: Very well. We will take the Canterbury case first. His Honor also ' explained in reply .to a further remark, that he indicated' at Christchurch that if the union took up the position it was taking up of declining to accept any award that was not exactly according to its views the Court might simply restore freedom of contract. Nothing was decided.

Mr Laracy: An undertaking was signed by both, parties and agreed His Honor: We adjourned to give the .parties a chance to agree, and now we resume, and-what we shall do will depend on what is put before us, whether we make an award or restore freedom of contract. THE EMPLOYERS' PROPOSAL.

Mi* Pryor: The employers desire a Dominion award, and they make this proposal• regarding shearing rates: Lambs, 17s 6d per hundred; sheep, by machine, 18s 6d per hundred, by blade, 20s per hundred, with the Canterbury award conditions. The Canterbury award was made after an exhaustive inquiry, the Otago award wais - basecl on it, and. the conditions had proved most satisfactory. There were the Canterbury, Wellington, and Gisborne disputes to be settled. In regard to the rate for lambs, it was 'formerly 2s 6d less than tor sheep, but since it was made the same under the Wellington award very few lambs had been shorn. It was to the interest of employers and workers to encourage ; the shearing of lambs. Touching the 'differential rate as between machine ■ and hand-shearing j returns obtained ! from sheep-owners showed that at ! present the men were able" to earn, considerably..., more "by machine shearing. It might be said that they were asking to reduce the rate agreed on in the last Wellington award. That award was very unsatisfactory to a large portion of the employers, and though a reductioi was asked for, so far as Wellington was concerned, it should be noted that the proposals of the employers meant a considerable j increase throughout the rest of the Dominion. If the minimum was i raised those sheds that were now pay- ! ing more : than th© minimum would ; have to raise their rates proportionately, and the result in Canterbury ,wpul<l be an extra cost of £4000 a j year to shear 4,000,000 sheep in thab district. The 23 million sheep in New Zealand, according to last year's sheep returns, would cost < £23,000 more to shear, under the proposals now made by the employers. WHAT THE MEN EARN. Frederick Hubert Liahatt, secretary of the Canterbury Sheep-owners' Union and the New Zealand Sheep^ owners' Federation, called by Mr,

Pryor. said he had compiled statistics from forms sent to sheep-owners and filled in by them. Mr Laracy: I protest against the Canterbury case' going in tin's way. The Judge: What is your reason? Mr Laracy: I claim that on what you said at Ohristclmrch we are entitled to "freedom of contract. The Judge: You can raise that point later on. We are here to hear the case.

•Witness, continuing, gave his statistics, showing average earnings per day worked, average per week worked, and average per week from start to finish of tho season, under circumstances as below:—

*M#n boarding themselves, i tMen boarding themselves as two of these sheds. v ' . In reference to his Canterbury figures, the witness explained the fact that more money was made by the workers at 18s. per hundred than at 20s, by saying that the former was the price at the big sheds, where there were more -conveniences and more holding capacity: If the .minimum were raised to 20s, those now paying 20s would have to pay more. The sheep of ■ which he had returns -from Canterbury numbered 1,366,913, out of which total ,py©r 80 per cent., or 1,088,928, were shorn at 18s per hundred..: : ' '. '■ ■ •'■ '■'• . '■ '■ ■ The sheep: shorn by blade included in the returns of the ■Wellington district were 374,828,; and, of these, 316,062 were shorn at 20s a hundred. Those shorn by: machine were 622,746, and out of these 540,437 were shorn at 20s a . hundred. Total sheep, 997,574; • The Hawke's Bay and Poverty Bay returns showed 135,171 sheep shorn 4>y blade, and 121,658 of these at 20s; 359,541 by machine, 335,868 at 20s. Statistics for- Otago and Southland were also given, showing that nearly 90 per cent, of the sheep in those districts ..were, shorn at 18sj:and that the earnings, for the whole season averaged1 from £3 Is Id to £4 19s sd* SHEEP-OWNERS' EVIDENCE.

Frederick Hubbard, Greenpark. Canterbury, farmer and; sheep-owner, said, he paid 20s a, hundred, and usually' boarded the men. This w.as more than the big stations paid. The men said they could get a better run on the big stations. If the minimum in the. award were 20s he would not expect to get his sheep shorn at that rate.

Eweri . McGregor, sheep-farmer Ohaupo and Hunterville, said be was shearing 2000 sheep at the former place, and 38,000. at the latter.. There was no award a,t Ohaupo (Auckland district), and the wages there- were 17s 6d and found. He considered that vras equivalent to 20s. The number usually averaged 100 a day. Before the. present Wellington award came into force, lambs were generally shorn, and the rate was 2s 6d less than for sheep. Lambs -were not usually shorn now. Mr Laracy did not call any evidence. He said the Federation would accept the present Wellington award ias the award for Wellington, Otago, Gisborne, and Marlborough. The Judge: That is all you have to say?

Mr Laracy: That is all, your Honor. -

The Judge: That concludes the hearing of the- Canterbury dispute. The Court will consider the matter. The Wellington dispute was then called. Mr Pryqr: Wo desire a Dominion award, with . the same conditions throughout. We have no further evidence to call. . • Mr Laracy, on being asked, said he had nothing 'farther to say. . The Judge.:',--if the Court decides to award a lower ''minimum rate than 20s a hundred, what will the union do? Mr Laracy: We shall abide by .the award. I understand the Court only fixes a minimum. The Judge: Is the union going to allow men to make contracts for less than 20s P ~-, Mr Laracy: The union can't prevent them. I _ The Judge: Will _ the union not I interfere with them if they desire to | make such contracts? iMr Laracy: The union will advise \ them not to become workers within the meaning of. the Act - The Judge:" Will you be so kind as to answer my question? Will you abstain from interfering with the men and allow them to work at the rate fixed by the Court, should it be below 20s per hundred, if they desire to do soi 3 Mr Laracy: No. We will do our best to advise the men not to become workers within the meaning of the Act for less than 20s a hundred. , The Judge: Do the employers ask

the Court to fix a rate in the face of that declaration?

Mr Pryor said they were in an awkward fix. If the." Court restored freedom of contract in regard to. wages they would like to have the Canterbury- conditions for other matters; but if the Court fixed a rate they would like it to be a differential rate.

. The Judge: Then practically you ask us to fix a rat©; notwithstanding what Mr Laracy has said? Mr Pryor said there was some differonce of opinion among the employers and they would like >a short time to confer and intimate to the Court a little later what they would do. His Honor: The case will be adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow.

In reply to a question raised by Mr Pryor, his Honor said that the Court would only hear the shearers' dispute—not the shed hands'.

, is 5 S S*S £&!«• s. ;d. £. s. d. s. d. 4 20/- 19 4| 5 16 4* 3 2 9 11 18/- 18 lia 5 13 10J . 3 18 10 Machine and Blade. 9 18/-21/4 17 1J 5 2 9 4 16 8 Blade Shearing: 24 18/-' 16 7§ 4 19 9 3 14 6 CANTERBURY, 1909-10. (l Machine. 9 20/- 114 680 464 37 18/- 19 2J '5 15 3 4 11 6 2 18/6 16 2% 4 17 3 4 11 9 2 18/- 19 11* 5 19 9 Blade. 33 20/- 16 1* 4 16 9 4 0 0 66 18/- 16 51 4 18 10 4 0 8 3 18/6 15 11 ■ 4 15 6 ,: 4 7 10 ■WELLINGTON. •> Blade. 72 20/- 17 6 .551 4 7 • 20 22/6* 18 1 5 8 4 4 11 3 21/25/t 17 8 5 6 0 3 2 11 Machine. 50 20/- 23 8 7 2 0 5 5 8 15 22/6 25 5 7 12 5 6 12 1 21/- 26 8 8 0 0 6 10 4 HAWKE'S BAY & POVERTY BAY. Blade. 17 20/-* 17 2 5 3 0 3 8 11 1 22/6 20 11 ■" 6 5 6.409 Machine. 23 20/- 23 4 7 0 3 4 13 5 1 22/6 14 6 4 0 7 2 17 6 1 21/- 27 6 850 600