THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14926, 31 August 1910, Page 4

THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT. (From Oun Owx Cohukspondent.) i WELLINGTON, August 30. 11l the House of Representatives to-day Mr T. E. Tavlor asked the Hon. J. A. Millar (Minister' of Labour) whether he knew that the Shearers' Federation was being put to a very great deal of trouble and expense in connection with the dispute with tho Sheep-owners' Federation over the rates of pay for shearing. Apparently, ho said, the sheep-owners had no other intention than to irritate and annoy tho shearers. -The men had already been cited to appear before two Conciliation Councils. They had been dragged from the South Island to Masterton and Palmerston North to bear from the employers, though they would not submit the dispute to conciliation. Now they were to be called upon to appear before three other councils to hear the same answer. It cost £59 for each of these farcical meetings. With the exception of the Christchurch dispute, it appeared that. the owners. were determined to irritate, the shearers as much as possible. The workers were anxious to have the dispute' settled, but if it continued it would not be tho men's fault if shearing operations were affected and thero was,a loss to the country of some thousands of pounds. He thought the Minister should look into the matter.

The Hon. J. A. Millar said he had no knowledge of the complaint. The reason for the holding of the meetings of the Conciliation Commissioners was that the dispute bad' to be lodged in each district. According lo tho act,'the dispute'had to be dealt \vith% the Conciliation Commissioner for each- district affected. There was' no method by which one hearing could lie taken for the whole Dominion. He had now received ai request signed by the secretary of the Shearers' Union and the secretary of the Sljeop : o\vners' . Federation for the three Cinimissioners to sit at Chrislchurch to go into the whole matter. These commissioners would make. ,1 recommendation to the Arbitration Court for a main award or a colonial, award. Mr Taylor: Do they mention a colonial award? ' . Mr Millar: It means that. They will meet on September 15. Continuing his remark!!, Mr Millar said thai he presumed that the reason for the delay in the-hear-ing of the dispute in the various districts was probably with the object of holding over the hearing until the three 'commissioners liad sat. He hoped that they would give a satisfactory decision. Mr Taylor: I am glad to-have your' reply, and I hope the incident will illustrato again the need for provision for the making of colonial awards. Mi' Davey asked if there was any truth in the telegraphic'statement in that •day's Dominion to the effect that representatives of both parties to the dispute had signed an undertaking to abide by the award of the court in tho matter. ' My Taylor: I think thai applies only to the Canterbury dispute. Mr Millar said 'that ho had been asked to appoint the three commissioners— which he might say was a most unusual sr.ocednriL._hut some auccial. stew had

to be taken. Whatever was agreed on by the commissioners would be adopted. Mr -Massey :■ It will be-in the nature of a colonial award? 31 r Millar: Yes.