LABOUR DISPUTES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13625, 19 December 1907, Page 6

LABOUR DISPUTES.

WAGES OF SHEPHERDS. CASE FOR ARBITRATION COURT. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] ' Dunkdin, Wednesday. The Conciliation Board has filed a recommendation in a dispute between the Otago and Southland Mustcrers' Industrial Union of Workers and the Otago and Southland sheepowuers. The principal recommendations are that leading shepherds, whether of longwool or merino flocks, where two or more shepherds are kept, shall be paid nob less than £85 per annum, and ordinary shepherds of all longwool or merino flocks not less than £70 per annum—these rates to apply only to men engaged exclusively as shepherds, and not to farm labourers, who may bo occasionally employed in shepherding. When musterers are engaged to muster sheep they shall be paid not less than 10s per day, and no time shall bo taken off for wet weather or other cause over which the men have no control. Musterers shall, where practicable, be supplied with good, dry, .sleeping accommodation on the hills, and provision shall be made for the protection of all bedding from wet during transit and while in use. As a preface to the award, tho Board stated that the evidence was very meagre, and they were hampered by the absence of any evidence on behalf of the employers. The Sheepowners' Association is dissatisfied with the recommendations, and has decided to take the case to the Arbitration Court, at its sitting in February next. HOURS OF COALMINERS. " BANK-TO PRINCIPLE. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PHESS ASSOCIATION.] Christchtirch, Wednesday. The Arbitration Court has given judgment in the case, in which the Westport Coal Company charged the Dennis ton Coal Workers' Union with having committed a breach of an a.ward by inducing members to refuse to abide by clause 16. The award provided that the men should be at the "face" for eight hours. The union was of opinion that the Coal Mines Act of 1907 had established the " bank-to-bank" principle, and hail reduced their working hours accordingly. The Court held that the union had committed a breach of the award, but that the union of oiheers had acted under a bonafide misapprehension. , No fine would bo inflicted, but the union must abide by tho terms of the award, and any further breach would have to be severely punished. The union was ordered to pay costs.