DAIRY FARM EMPLOYEES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23005, 7 October 1936, Page 6

DAIRY FARM EMPLOYEES

EFFECT OF NEW LEGISLATION EXPLANATION BY MINISTER A MISUNDERSTANDING REMOVED (From Our Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 6. A statement clarifying the situation of the wives of dairy farm employees as they are affected by the provisions of the Agricultural Workers Act was made to-day by the Minister of Labour (Mr H. T. Armstrong). The Minister explained that from letters he had received it appeared that a misunderstanding existed over the position, and that the employment of married couples on farms might be prejudiced if the effect of the Act was not made clear. Mr Armstrong said that the Act laid down the minimum wage of £2 2s 6d a week in addition to board and lodging for a dairy farm worker. If free board and lodging were not provided ' the worker was entitled to £3 a week. In many cases the worker was married and he and his wife were engaged as a married couple with free house and foodstuffs provided free. The house and foodstuffs in such cases were not regarded as free board and lodging under the Act and could not be taken into account as part of the wages of the worker. The statutory wage and holiday provisions applied definitely to the husband but not necessarily to the wife. The Minister explained that the situation of the wife was governed by the nature of the work, if any, she was required to perform for the farmer. If she was engaged wholly on farm work she, too, was entitled to the statutory wage and holidays. If she performed in the main only domestic duties and merely assisted for brief periods each day in farm work she should be paid in respect of the latter duties a due proportion of the statutory wage. It was admissible in computing a wife's payment of this proportion to take into account the rent value of the free house and the value of the milk, butter, or anything else provided by the farmer. If a farm worker's wife w 3 engaged only on domestic duties, then she was not subject to the legislation, and her remuneration was a matter for private arrangement with her employer. , „ " It is not desired lj the Government in its endeavour to put the farm worker on a better footing to create difficulties in the way of employment of married couples, Mr Armstrong said. "Both employers and employees are recommended to submit to the nearest branch of the Labou. Department particulars of cases in which they are concerned and which they think requir. individual consideration. Farmers are particularly requested not to terminate the engagement of married couples until they have made sure from the department that their own or their employee's estimate of the new wages due is the correct one. Farmers need not fear the institution of proceedings/ and certainly ho action will be taken while a farmer is .awaiting the ruling of the department on a case submitted by him. The department will make every endeavour to meet each case reasonably, and is instructing its inspectors to treat each case on its merits, as it recognises the wide variations in the conditions that apply to the farm engagements of married couples."