FOR ARBITRATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10822, 11 February 1921, Page 7

FOR ARBITRATION

THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE EMPLOYERS DECLINE ANOTHER CONFERENCE. INTERESTING DISCUSSION. The adjourned hearing of the dispute initiated l>y the Wellington Shearers and Shed-hands’ Industrial Union of Workers for wages and conditions governing the employment of crutchers, | shed-hands, and shearing machine experts, was held , before a Conciliation I Council yesterday morning. The Conj eiliation Commissioner (Mr W. Newton) I presided. Tho assessors were: for the union, Messrs C. E. Baldwin, W. Boone and T. Cartwright: for the omplovars, Messrs W. C. Prime, W. H. NieholI son and Hugh Morrison. Mr C. I Gravndlor acted a 3 agent for tho union land Mr William Pryor as agent for 'the employers. UNION DEMANDS. The union demands wore briefly as follow : ill ml or machine crunchers, not less than 9s per 100, x>lus Is extra per 100 where wigging is required; crutchers employed by the day not less than 30s per day ; shed-hands, £4 per week, or 2s 'did per hour; shearing machine experts, £1 per day, or £5 per week; in sheds with over eight hands, not less than £1 5s per day, or £7 per week. Mr Grayndler asked whether the employers had any counter proposals to bring forward. In reply, Mr Pryor said that it was agreed at the previous sitting in September last to postpone the hearing until February, when the sheepownera’ representatives would confer with the representatives of the union. The employers had in the meantime come to the conclusion that ft was impracticable and inadvisable to prooeed with the framing of an agreement concerning orutcthers and machine experts; which, they considered, oould not be classified with the shearers. Recourse to the Arbitration Court appeared to he the only way out of the difficulty. AN “ULTIMATUM.” Mr Grayndler pointed out that when the adjournment was agreed upon, Mr Pryor had stated that the union would lose nothing. The employers had only been playing for delay by seeking the postponement. The union intended to adhere to the claims it had presented. If they were not acceptable to the employers, the union would try conclusions. He accepted the employers’ ultimatum in the best grace, and they would demonstrate that the employers were not as strong as they thought they were. Mr Pryor: There is no ultimatum, and that word cannot he allowed to go. We have the statutory authority to deal with these matters. I am not in a position to judge whether the decision of the employers is right or wrong, but it is not practicable to have an award for these particular "workers. We are issuing no ultimatum, when die matter can be taken to the Arbitration Court. My impression is that the Shearers’ Federation has done exceedingly well as a result of past conferences with the employers. Mr Grayndler: But you won’t agree to a conference now. You are not prepared to confer. ARBITRATION COURT PREFERRED. Mr Pryor said that the employers were not prepared to go on. It was for the Arbitration Court to decide whether there should be an award for shearers. That was quite a constitutional course. Mr Baldwin inferred that, the employers’ representatives were of opin- , ion that the union assessors were incapable of negotiating for a settlement. ' Mr Pryor: I said nothing of the sort. Mr Baldwin: Your words imply it. Mr Grayndler went on to refer to the “Bolshevik attitude” and “questionable methods” of the other aide. Mr Pryor protested against the use of such words. He appealed to tho commissioner in a denial that he had ever descended to questionable methods. Mr Newton: That is so. Mr Grayndler said he had the proof of a certified reporter that the adjournment was made on the understanding that thp employers would later discuss the framing of an award. ALL THAT WAS PROMISED. Mr Pryor said that everything that he was a party to at the adjournment—everything the gentlemen present with him at that meeting had promised—had been carried out to the fullest extent. Mr Baldwin said that the ' union would settle the dispute with the erm-/ ployers without going before the Arbitration Court. They were confident that they would get an agreement with the employers all right. The union, he said, had absolutely no faith in the eheepowners, since they had led the men to believe that the meeting was being called for the purpose of coming to an agreement. The commissioner: The only course we have, then, is to defer the whole dispute to the court.