SHAREMILKERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 3 May 1937, Page 7

SHAREMILKERS

HARDSHIP IN FULFILLING CONTRACTS MINISTER’S SUGGESTIONS [United Press Association) ' CHRISTCHURCH, 30th April. . A suggestion that parties in sharemilking agreements should get together with a view to drawing up for use in the coming season a standard form of agreement, prescribing among other things the basis of the distribution of the proceeds of farming operations and costs to be borne by the owner and sharemilker respectively, was made by the Acting-Minister of Labour, the Hon. P. C. Webb, in an interview to-day. Legislative action over the matter was foreshadowed by the Minister.

- “Representations have been made to me recently,” said the Minister, “as to the unfortunate position in which sharemilkers are placed in respect of their sharemilking contracts and also in respect of the application of the Agricultural Workers’ Act, 1936, to the workers whom they are required to em- , ploy to carry out such contracts. “The increased rates of wages prescribed by the Act for agricultural workers employed on dairy farms were decided upon having regard to the guaranteed price for butter, and it is pointed out that the sharemilker (who receives only a fixed percentage of the milk or cream returns) has to meet the whole of the increased cost of labour out of the percentage payable to him under the contract, his principal receiving the remaining percentage without paying any contribution toward the cost of labour.

“Where the sharemilker himself provides stock for the farm, he is, I understand, on a 50 per cent, basis under his sharemilking contract, while in those cases in which he does not provide stock he is usually on a 33 1-3 basis and he has to meet the whole cost of the labour required to be provided by him out of his 50 per cent, or 33 1-3 per cent, as the case may be. NO STANDARD FORM “Furthermore, no standard form of share-milking agreement is in use, the various contracts differing in their provisions in respect of other matters provided therein according to the parties and the districts concerned. For example, it appears that in some cases the share milker receives only a percentage of the monthly cheques and does not jprticipate in a bonus or in the proceeds arising from the rearing of calves and pigs, while in other cases he participates in the bonus and receives a share of the calves and pigs. -“Similarly, the costs to be borne by the share-milker according to the term of the contracts, but it is usually found that he himself has to meet all expenditure for oil, power, milkingmachine ' arid separator replacements, and harvesting. In addition, he has to keep in repair all farm implements, irrespective of the condition of such implements at the time he takes them over for farming. “It is contended that the sharemilkers are placed in a most unfair position.” , , - { , ,

The Mihister added that, although he recognised the problem was one of considerable difficulty, it did not appear to him to be incapable of solution. He therefore suggested that the parties concerned should , get together. In tl?e meantime the Government was investigating the position from the Legislative point of view, and he thought it would be realised by both sides that any agreement arrived at on the lines be had indicated would be of considerable assistance to the Government in formulating any legislative proposals that might be considered essential for the well-being, not only of the sharemilker, but also of the dairying industry itself.