THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10502, 9 July 1910, Page 2

THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

MR LARACY IN REPLY. The following letter vindicating the attitude taken up by the shearers, has been forwarded us by Mr Laracy t\.T publication:— "Trades Hall, Christchurcli, "To the Honorable the Minister of "7th July, 1910.

Labor, Wellington. "Sir,—With regard to the shearers' dispute: As a good deal of dust is at present being thrown in the eyes of the general public and of the shearers themselves by the sheepowners and their representatives on the newspaper press and elsewhere, I desire to state briefly our position. "1. Shearing is at present regulated in New Zealand by three awards—one in the North Island for 20s and found, and two in the South Island for 18s and found. Thus the shearers in the North Island receive II per cent, more money for doing the same work as the men in the South Island.

"2. To remedy this state of things the shearers proposed to submit conditions of work which would be suitable for the whole of New Zealand, and with that end in view djscussed the matter at their conference ill Wellington last March. A rough draft set of conditions of some 40 or 50 clauses was printed, embodying many alternative clauses, and many, clauses which would necessarily be rejected before the revised conditions went to the Court. Before this revision had taken place, the sheepowners themselves drafted conditions and filed a copy of the same conditions in different industrial districts. "3. These conditions were first, considered in Masterton by the sheepowners and shearers meeting together, and a partial agreement was arrived at. It was also agreed that undecided points, such as crutching, should be left to the Court. The price in the employers' demands was 17s 6d, a reduction of 2s 6d per 100 on the North Island rate. The shearers declined to entertain any reduction, and wanted the rate fixed as formerly agreed to, viz., 20s per 100. "4. Next the same demands of the employers were discussed in Canterbury, but the Canterbury owners declined to accept the. agreement arrived at in Masterton by their fellow sheepowners. "5. Mr Pryor, the secretary of „thc Employers' Association, alleges now that I, as secretary for the shearers, declined to let the Court's decision at it's first sitting hold good for the Dominion. What I did state, in a private conversation, was that considering the matter had been dealt with first in tlie Wellington district, and a partial agreement come to there, I thought Wellington should be the place at which . a Dominion award was considered. We were willing then, and are willing still, to let our conditions of work be settled in the place chosen by the employers themselves to open proceedings, viz., the Wellington district. 1 publicly make tin's statement now: that the shearers are perfectly willing to meet in Wellington representatives of North Island and South Island employers and thresh out the whole matter. It is not practicable to take now the Canterbury decision. of the Court as a Dominion award, because no provision has been made for the representation before the Court of employers and workers in other districts. "6. With regard to the reasonableness of the rate of 20s: Mr Pryor has quoted misleading figures in an attempt to shew that the shearing rates have gradually increased for tlie last few years. The fact is that for many years the rate was 20s. and it was gradually reduced by the employers to los, and an attempt made to reduce it to 12s 6d. J3.v organisation the shearers have succeeded in raising the rates to some extent, but even now the rates are not back to their old level of -20s —a rate which has prevailed practically without interruption in the North Island.

"7. With regard to the suggestion that in declining to engage at less than 20s we are 'dictating' to the Court: As a fact we are acting on the advice of his Honor Mr Justice Sim, given to us in the last hearing of our case in Canterbury. The following extract from the verbatim report proves this : —' His Honor: There was no maximum price in the award, only a minimum. Witness: But how could they get the maximum except by striking? His Honor: They need not take the work; tliey could go away. That is exactly the attitude adopted by the shearers: we are 'going away' from the work until we can get 20s per 100. As for the contention that this constitutes a 'strike' or an 'incitement to strike,' I quote the following newspaper report of a ruling of his Honor Mr Justice Sim in the Canterbury threshing dispute:—' . . . The rates would only be fixed as minimum rates. If in a bad season men wanted higher rates, it would not be a "strike" if they refused to work for the minimum rate fixed by the award.' "8. I might also point out that when recently an advertisement was inserted in the Otago Daily Times by Mr Waddell and Mr Cooper (two of our members), advising shearers not to engage under a certain rate, and the matter came before Mr Justice Sim, he held that neither of these men were 'workers,' that is, shearers, because they were not actually engaged ill that employment at the time. Many men are shearers only for a few weeks in tlie year; they have other occupations; and now they decline to leave those occupations for less than 20s per 100 for shearing. They will, as Mr Justice Sim says, 'go away' from the shearing. "In conclusion I suggest that, as sooh as possible, three representative North Island owners and three representative South Island owners meet six representative shearers in Wellington and confer on the basis of the Masterton partial agreement, the present Canterbury award, and the proviso of the present North Island rate, viz., 20s per 100. Such a conference could easily arrive at an agreement which would ensure industrial peace for the sheepowners so long as the present conditions of work are maintained. The present difficulties have been manufactured by the employers, through their persistent refusal to meet the men in conference. "I have the honor to be, Sir, "Yours faithfully, " M. Lakacy, Secretary."