SHED HANDS AND CONCILIATION.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10586, 15 October 1910, Page 6

SHED HANDS AND CONCILIATION.

"ABSOLUTELY FARCICAL." The present trouble of the Shearers' Federation —the securing: of an award to govern the conditions of labor for woolshed hands —was explained to a Mail reporter Yesterday by Mr Laracy, general secretary of the Shearers' and Woolshed Employees' 'Federation. The hearing of tlie .shedhands had been fixed by Judge Sim for the November sitting of tlie Arbitration Court, and in this connection Mr Laracy had v.rittcn to the Hon. J. A. Millar, Minister for Labor, stating that the date being' so late meant that the season would be Half spent and these workers would not have had their conditions of labor „or rate of 'pay fixed, by the Court as 'tliey had last season resolved upon doing. "Would it not be possible," the .writer had, asked, "to induce the Court to'" deal with, this case at an" earlier date?-' I may state that the fact of -this case "being liung up in this manner is,going to deal.a heavy blow to our organisation, as the shedhands will not continue to he members if they are 30ing to be denied the protection of the Ctfurt in the same manner as the farm laborers of Canterbury/' * , The Minister had. replied stating-that, he" had communicated with the Judge and on receipt of his reply would advise Mr Laracv. Mr Laracy said that the shedhands were practically being denied the pro- . tcction of the Court, as the-matter .would not he considered and no award woidd be made until.the season was more than half over. Another matter in the same connection which needed remedy was, said "Mr Laracv, the method of dealing with the case before the Conciliation Councils. •Tt is absolutely farcicaTthat we should ■have to run all over the-country and that the Conciliation Councils should sit at "great expense to the Dominion merelv to hear the employers state that thev'will not discuss the matter. I protested against this m Palmcrston North, and said I thought no more sittings should bo hold. That is why I did not appear before the Council when it sat at Duncdin." The employers , claimed, Mr Laracv continued, that the ■ Court had established a precedent by refusing to make an award 111 the farm laborers' case. But this was altogether different, as tlie shedhands were just one section of workers. Relying on the soundness of their claim the, employers had refused 'to state a case for the Conciliation Council, but "the Council had yet "been obliged to sit at each place, where a. dispute had been filed to comply' with the provisions of the Act. It showed, Mr Laracy held, that some amendment was required in the Act m that direction. It would have been much more satisfactory if the case had been dealt with at one centre and references filed at the other places. Though no provision was made for a Dominion ■award and one could not be. made, the Judge had stated in the shearers' case that the conditions wore the same ami the same award Would be made lor other parts of the country. What the shearers wanted, was this same procedure in regard "to the,.shedhands dispute, so that they' would not have to travel all oyer the country to hear the same thing stated over and over again.