THE CANTERBURY FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE

Otago Witness, Issue 2811, 26 August 1908, Page 22

THE CANTERBURY FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT

ARBITRATION COtTRT MAKES NO AWARD. The following is the judgment, of the Arbitration Court in the long-drawn-out farm labourers' dispute in Canterbury: — This is an industrial dispute between the -Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers' U-nion and the Canterbury Sheep-owners' Industrial Union d Employers, and «bout 7000 farmers oawyinff on .business in the Canterbury industrial district. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Board for settlement on the 16th day of November, 1906, and on the .same day jwas referred by the -unioii to this court. When the oase caane before vh« ; court in Aug-usr, 1907, Mr Jones, who ap- i pearod" as the representative . of a Urge ! number of farmers, claimed that the court had no jurisdiotioxi to h«ar the dispute. This objection was overruled, «nd an order v. r as made under section 85 of the >-ct, referring the <lkpu{« to tho Conciliation Board for investigation and report (9 Gaz., li.E., 653; Book of Awards, vol. viii, p. 606). The Conciliaiicn Board proceeded to investigate the dispute, aud for this n'.r-

Y pose heard the evidence of a large number • of witnesses in different parts of the industrial district. The report of the board was presented to the court in July, 1908. TJio dissenting reports which accompany it make it clear that on many points this ! report expresses only the views of the ' chairman. The workers' representatives concurred in it pro forma, for the cake of having a report by the board, and they express in -*. separate report their own views as to the terms which would constitute a I fair and reasonable settlement of the dis1 .pute. The employers' representatives, on the other 'hend, think that it is not desirable" to make anj award, and that existiog conditions should be allowed to continue. The following are the demands put forward by the -union: — Schedule of Wages and Conditions. Hours of Labour. — Ploughmen, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., vrith the following time off for meals : Breakfast, 7 to 7.30 a.m., a-t which time they will leave stables or camp; one hour and a-half for dinner, the time to be taken from leaving work until Leaving stables to return td work. A ploughman to leave off working his horses at 5 p.m. No other work shall be done except to unharness and feed his horses and otherwise attend to them after 5 p.m., but lie shall not be compelled 1 to groom his j horses after that hour. Day labourers, etc., I eight hours and a-half for the first five days J of the week, and four hours and a-half on , Saturdays. General farm hand, the hours of i labour shall be nine per day. Harvesters' I hours shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with one hour for dinner and a hTTIf-hour for lunch, both before and after dinner. Married couples: When the husband is working 1 -horses his hours shall be the same as ploughmen; if required to do harvest work, then ' the hours shall be those- of a .harvester ; all . other classes of 'work at "the rate of 48 hours per week. Rates of Wages. — The following shall be the minimum rate of wages for all classes of work: — Head ploughman or timekeeper, SX I 10s per week; ploughman on level country, not less than £1 7s 6d per week for fourhorse team, and £1 5s for three-horse team, and 2s 6d ncr week -or every -horse over four ; swamp ploughing (with aix horses), £1 15s per week, with 2a 6^ extra for each horse over six. General farm hand, £1 7s 6d per week, with board «nd lodgings. Day labourers, 7s 6d per day. Casual labourers, Is per hour. Drainers shall be paid 1b per hour, and if working in water Is 3d per hour (g um boots to be supplied by employers). Harvest wages : All men working horses during harvest time on a farm or station shall be paid £2 15s per week, with board and lodgings; stooking and forking in paddock, £i 15s per week, or by the hour Is 3d, with board and lodging; stacking, £3 per week, or 13 6d per hour, with board and lodging ; stacker's assistant, Is per hour, with board and lodging; day men, Is per hour^ with board at the rat© of 10s per week where necessary. Married couples Of both aie required to work) shall be paid as follows: — i Man, £1 7s 6d pei week; wife (if cook), 15s per week for foui men, and 2s per week extra for <sach person over four, and if required to bake £1 per v/eek. Married coup!es shall reoeive, free of rent or other charges, a. house, ooal or firewood, and shall be allowed lo ke«p a horee and trap on. terms to be arranged, which shall not exceed is per week. Scale cf rations to be arranged between «mployer and employee. If husband, is required to "harvest, then his wages shall be ihoss of a hfkvester. Shepherds : Head ohepLerds on plains or downs country (if married), £1 12-s 6J per week; head shepiierd, back -or mountainous country (If married), £1 15s Gd par week, house, fuel, rations, horses, and feed for dogs lo bo frc-e of rent or other charges: any other necessaries as per agreement. Head shepherds (single), the same as above, with board and lodging in liau cf house, etc.; niider-ahepherds (single), £l 12s Gd per week, with board and lodging, if married £1 12s Gd v>«_- -week (other conditions cjirce ss head shepherdts). Casual shepherds during mustering, lambing, shearing, etc ,

£1 15s per week", with board and lodging, feed for dogs and horses free of charge ; mustering oti Sundays, Is per hour. Musterers and packers in back or mountainous country shall be paid £3 per week of six days, and 10s for Sunday^, also feed for horses, dogs, etc., with board and lodging. Day miiiterers, 11s per day, employers to allow one day's pay for travelling from last place of employment and 5s for expenses. Thrashers : The wages, hours, and .conditions of harvesters shall apply to one working a thrashing plant. Holidays. — The following holidays shall be observed: — New Year's Day, Good Friday. Easter Monday, day* of local sports, Labour Day, birthday of ruling Sovereign, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, -one week each in November and May (all at full pay), and a halfholiday on Saturday (except during harvest time). Overtime. — Day labourers, Is per hour ; harvesters, Is 3d per hour for all time worked before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. Boys.— Boys to be paid not leas than 17s 6d per week, with an increase of 2s 6d per week every six months until they receive the full wages. No boy under 16 years of age to ba allowed to take charge of or work a loam of more than two horses. Boys not to be allowed to do work before or after the time allowed for other farm workers. Accommodation — All sleeping accommodation must • be properly ventilated and kept iii a sanitary condition, and each individual shall have the same air space as now allowed under " The Shearers Act, 1898." The dining room shall be a separate room from the sleeping apartment. 'Each worker shall be allowed board, soup, candles or lamp; men to have the cboice oft baker's bread when practicable. Where men have to cook their own food, they shall be allowed 5s per woek extra. Preference. — Preference- of employment to be given to members of this union. * Contracts. — No. work covered by these conditions shall be let by contract. The report of the board contains a recommendation with regard to the hours of work and wages of most of the workers referred to in these -demands, but excludes from the operation of the recommendation the hours of work and wages of workers engaged in milking and attending to cows. The reports also show that a majority of the board thought it was not desirable to make any award in connection with the dispute, so far as it related to shepherds, musterers, and packers. These reports were considered, and the whole case very fully discussed by the representatives of the parties before this court in fchristchurch in July last. It is clear that the court has a discre- j tion as to whether it will or will not make ! an award in any particular ease. The , existence of an industrial dispute gives j J jurisdiction to make an award, and that ! | jurisdiction is exercised in most cases, buj» I the court is not bound to make an award m every case that is brought before it. In the present case the court is asked to bring under the operation of an awa'fd all employers engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits in the industrial district of Canterbury. If 6ttC h an award is made the court could not reasonably refuse to make similar awards in other industrial districts, and what tho court has really j to decide on the present application is whether it is necessary that the whole | farming industry of the Dominion should i be regulated under the Industrial Concilia- I tion and Arbitration Acts. The union I asks tHat the hours of work, wages, and genera.! conditions of work of practically all the workers employed by all those en- j gaged in the industry shall be regulated ! by an award. Now, it is obvious that an [ award dealing with these matters, and j applying, as it would do, to thousands of ' employers scattered «U! over the district — ar.d employer?, too, who resent very much tho attempted intei ference with their business — would be difficult of enforce- '

r ment, and that nothing less than, a small army of inspectors would be required to enforce effectually the provisions of .such an award. In view of this fact, of the magnitude also of the interests involved, both directly and indirectly, in this dispute, and of the serious results to not only the farming industry, but, indirectly, to the prosperity of the whole Dominion, that might follow from the exercise of its power of regulation, the court should not interfere unless the necessity of doing so has 'been clearly made out, and should cot attempt to make regulations for the sake merely of regulating. Before such interference is justified it must be clear that there are substantial grievances or abuses which can be redressed effectually by the court, and that the benefits to be obtained by its interference will more than compensate for any mischief that may result from such interference. The demands of the union with regard to wages involve an increase in the wages paid to thousands of workers now employed by farmers. Evidence was -called on behalf of the union to prove that there was considerable dissatisfaction 'on the part 'of "many workers with the wages now paid to them. There was, however, .nothing in the evidence to show that this dissatisfaction existed to any , .extent be-, fore the demands of the union were formulated in 1906, and the dissatisfaction now proved -to exist does not appear to amoun.t to more than' this : that % large ■number of workers would like to \ave lheir wages increased. That is, doubtless, a perfectly natural- and laudable desire , on their part, but the existence of such a desire is not of itself a sufficient ground for the interference of the court. The evidence shows that a large proportion of farm workers — one estimate was 90 per I cent. — live with their employers, and are j provided by them with board and lodging. I The question of a living wage, therefore, ! does not arise in connection with this class of workers. It arises -only in connection with day labourers, with whose case we shall deal hereafter. The evidence called on behalf of the employers established that in tho past many farm labourers had saved enough money out of their earnings to enable them to start farming on their own account. The figures given | in the New Zealand Official Year Books , show that the wages paid to farm labourers j in Canterbury were 15s per week in ""oS^ i and that in 1906 they ranged from 20s to 22s 6d per week. It is clear that the wages of farm labourers have increased during these years without any outside j interference, and it cannot be said that I while the position of other workers has ! been improved that of farm labourers ras remained stationary. It is clear, also, 1 from the evidence that the wages paid to farm, labourers in New Zealand are better 'than those paid to ihe sanie workers in any part of Australia. It was said that dissatisfaction existed in some cases with the food and accommodation provided by employers. Ihe subject of .accommodation,' as already j pointed out, has been dealt with by the 1 Legislature. With regard to the comi plaints about food, it was not suggested ! that the instances which were referred to 1 were other than isolated cases, or that | farmers generally did not feed their ; workers properly. j It appears to us, therefore, that, dealing with farm labourers generally, the union has failed to prove the existence of any, substantial grievance or abuse that would justify the interference of the court witH the whole farming industry of Canterbury.' I Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that a case has been made out for the interference of the court, and that it is desirable to bring the farming industry under the operation of an award, we proceed now to deal with the question of whether it is possible to make a workable award on the subiect. By a workable award we mean an award which would fix fair and reasonable conditions with regard, to hours of work and wages, and, at the same time, would not hamper or restrict, without any compensating advantage, the operations of farmers. In dealing with this question we propose to leave out of consideration in the meantime the. case of shepherds, musterers, and packers, and lo consider the case of the other workers included in the union's demands. The most important of theso are II) ploughmen, (2> general farm hands, (3) harvest hands. (4) day labourers. Thei'3<ire farms on which men are employed as ploughmen only, and are kept working at team work all the time, but these cases appear to be rare. The general rule appears to -be for ploughmen to do other, work as; well, and Mr Thorn included plougTimen in his classification of general farm hands. He divided the general farm v hands into the four following classes-:-: — , (a)- The worker who is an ordinary rouseabout, and who does odd jobs on a farm or station, and has little or no attendance to animals. (b) The worker who is a roußeabout and teamster. (c) The worker who does ploughing and odd jobs, and milks ■& few cows. (d) The worker who attends to stock of all descriptions. The union asked the court to fix the hours of labour for general farm hands at nine hours per day, and the board has recommended that the hours of work for general farm hands shall not exceed eight in any one day. and that ploughmen shall not work more than eight hour 3in tight chains. As already pointed out, a very large proportion of farm workers live with their employers, and are members of their domestic circle. This fact alone makes it veryundesirable that any hard-and-fast rule should be made with regard to the daily hours of such workers. When a worker is living on his employer's premises it is difficult to say when his work begins and when it ends, and any regulation as to hours, to be effectual, would necessitate the keeping by each employer of a record in a time book of the hours worked by each of his seri'ants. It appeax3 to us quite out of the question to apply, as the union peeks to do. the methods of a factiry to the opei"ations of a farm. The operations of a farm are carried on subject to the restrictions imposed by weather, and it happens that time lost by bad weather at one period may have to be made up, as far as possible, by working longer hours at another period, and that emergencies arise which make it necessary for farm workers to work at times without any regard to hours. An* limitation of daily or weekly hours would prevent this being done, except at an increased <o«t by payment for overtime. Some of the witnesses who had kept exact , records gave instances of tho time that had been lost through wet weather. ;

: Thus, 'one "witness said thai four yeats ago his horse did not turn a furrow foB two months through wet weather ; another, witness said that 1 he lost in connection with ploughing work 60 days in the year 1905, and 30 days in the year 1907^ another witness gave 31 as the total number of days his teams, owing to wet weather, were able to work in four months in the* spring of 1905; another witness said that | in four months of the spi-ing- of 1905 there were 64 days on which the ground was so | wet that the teams could not work it, and' that during a period of nine months in 1 the same year there were 33 days on which | the weather was so wet that the teama could not go out at all. The same witness said that" in three months in 1906. there were 52 days on which the ground wag so wet that the teams could not work it. Other witnesses gave similar experiences^ I and from all this evidence it is clear that j any attempt to impose on ploughing operations the restrictions as to hours asked for by the union would hamper and greatly increase the cost of these opera*' tions^ And the same observation holds good- with regard to other farming operations. The difficulty of fbcing " definite hours I for work is increased in cases where part.- ! of the work on a farm consists in milk'•ing cows. . In- these- -cases • it is .impraefciey able to have the work done Vithin any continuous period -of nine- hours,, for the .reason that cows' oufeht to be milked -eyerx 12- hour 3. The difficulty- of regulation; on ■ this subject is ~ recognised in. tho re- ■ -port of- the Conciliation Board, .which recommends that the hours -and wages of workers engaged in milking or attending to cows shall be fixed by mutual agreement. To get over the difficulty a suggestion was made by the union that a' ! worker engaged in milking cows" should' j work for four or five hours in "the morning, and again for four or live hours at night. Some of rhfe witnesses thought that it might be practicable to work in this way, but it did not appear that any, farmer has erer tried the system as an experiment: It would be out of the question for the court to • force on dairy farmers a method of working which had not^ been tried anywhere, even as an experiment. According to the Official Year Book, there were 54,000 cows, and heifers kept' in the Canterbury Provincial District for dairying purposes in 1906-07. One witness said that most of the farmers milk only six or eight cows, and, if--jhis is so. it follows that a large proportion of all the farmers iv the industrial district must bs engaged in darryin-t;, Any. award, therefore, .-which excluded from* ife operation, as recommended by .the board, all workers engaged in milking or attending to cows, would leave only a very smalt proportion of the total workers to be affected by the award. The difficulty of .fixing hours' in fne* case of workers engaged in dairying be- . oomes 'a practical impossibility in the-^-caso of workers employed in looking .after sheep. This impossiblicy was admitted by -ghe union's witnesses, and yet the" court is aeked to. fix -the daily hours ofigeneral farm labourers, --many of: whom! must have to work among' sheep .at different periods of the year. It appears- to us, therefore, to be quite impracticable to fix any definite hours for the daily work of a general farm hand, without altering./ materially the system under which farming is carried on at the present time. We leave now the question of hours, and proceed to deal with the question of fixing a minimum wage for geneTal farm -. hands. We have referred already to Mr Thorn's enumeration of ' the different; kinds of workers who are included in the class fcf general -farm hands. It sms not suggested that the court should attempt to fix a minimum wage for each of the four classes mentioned by Mr Thorn, and ifc is difficult to see how it is possible to . fix one minimum wage for different classes of workers, whose work, in many respects, is so different. Jn tho board's report it is recommended that the wages of ploughmen and general farm TnjgnAt ■ should be fixed at 24a per week, with additions in the case of ploughmen working more than four horses, or engaged ia iwamp ploughing. On this point the report expresses the view of the chairman' only, because the workers' representatives think the minimum should be 27s 6d per week. In his address before the court Mr Thorn gave the Tesult of a very careful examination of the evidence --'as to the * wages .paid in the cases as to which information had been obtained during the hearing before the board. This analysis showed that in 76 cases the wages ramged from 20s< up to 30s per w«ek; in 15 cases 20s -per week was paid ; in 20 cases, 2s 6d per week ; and in 28 cases, 25s per week was- paid. MrThorn on this evidence asked the court to .. ■fix the minimum at 25s or -27s 6d per -week. We are not satisfied' that it is practicable to fix what would be a fair minimum wage for a general farm iiand. If the minimum--were fixed low — at, for example, 20s per" week — the result might be to bring" down • the wages -of those who are receiving higher wages, and this is certainly not -a desirable -result. If, on the other hand, tfoe ■ -minimum were fixed at 25s or 27s 6d per v-eefc, the result would be to throw a considerable burden on the farming industry, and increase by many thousands of pounds the cost of iarming, if it is to be carried on in the future as it has been carried on in the past. The effect of any such increase in wages would be to discourage tho employment of labour and to induce farmers to avoid grain-growing and other operations that involve the employment o£ labour. Mr Thorn contended that the work of & general farm hand ought to be taken as worth, cay. 27s 6d per week, and that that Eum ought to be fixed as the minimum wag& to be paid to every competent farm labourer. But there is nothing in the evu denoe to establish that the services of the farm labourer to whom. say. 20s is paid are north as much as the services of the worker to whom 30s is paid. The services rendered in each case may be so different in worth that the wage in each case ma# be perfectly fair wnen measured by exactly the same standard. The fact that one farm labourer is paid 30s per week does not prove that another farm labourer whoreceives only 20s per week is underpaid, and there is nothing in the evidence to justify ' the court in fixing a minimum wage at 25s or 27s 6d in preference to 20s or 22s 6d pen week. A serious objection to fixing a minlmunS wage for the general farm hand arises from the fact that there are a large number of workers who find work on farms, but who

By using the money-maker (the HART* NEXT MILKING MACHINE) a man singlehanded can manage a fairly larg» herd of cows,- NIMMO & BLAIB.

j- . |Kfe not worth the wage paid to the ordinary competent farm hand» Such workers would he thrown , out of employment, or would fcave to obtain permits to work at less than the minimum wage. The report of the board contains provision for an agreement Spexng made provisionally in these cases between "the employer and the worker, and lor m the review the agreement by the (chairman of the Conciliation Board. It (was estimated that from 3000 to 4000 eases jwould have to be' dealt with under this iprovision, and it eeems- quite Impracticable to have such a large number- of cases, arising in different, parts of the'industrial district, dealt with, by the chairman of the Conciliation, Board. During the hearing of fche case before the court it was suggested that' the- parties might be left to make an agreement on the subject, with a provision for giving notice to the Inspector of Awardsv^ind giving- the union a right to liave any agreements to which it objected reviewed before the nearest stipendiary magistrate. This scheme would ha"«e avoided some of the difficulties presented by the other method, and it might be possible to devise a. workable scheme on the subject. - But it is certainly an objection to , fixing a minimum wage that, if any reasonable sum is fixed, it would, mean that some thousands of workers would ihave to be -allowed to work at less 'than such minimum, or be thrown out ■of employment. -It has not been proved 1 •fcbjat these men are being sweated. They i iaie ,proyided" wi'tK food and- shelter, and if ' the pecuniary wage is small it may be the j case' thatrthey are not worth more to the I farmer, and- they might have difficulty in I yarning a living .at "any other work. . , j . ''The- conclusion we, nave come to' on the. whole matter 'is that it is not practicable ■ *o make an award fixing the hours of work c.nd' wages for .general- farm Hands, without altering seriously the conditions under I which farming 16 now carried on. If a strong case had been made out for interference the court might have felt compelled 'x> make an award on the siibject and to Attempt to regulate the houre of work and j •wages of general farm hands. Such a ' case, however, has not been made out, and i the court is tbtfs relieved from the necee- ] sity of making the perilous attempt _to regulate *by award the whole farming •industry of the Dominion. N ! The consideration of the case of the day labourer was postponed, and we now proceed' to deal with that subject. The evidence shows that a large number of farmers pay their day labourers 7s per day and upwards, while others pay only 6s per day, and some as low as $s per day. We think that anything less than 7s per day is not: a living wage where the worker has to maintain a wife and children, and that, co far as the day labourer is concerned, a case has been made out for the interference of the court. In ordinary cir. cumstances the court would make an award dealing with this case. The day labourers form-, however, only a small fraction of the j ■workers employed by farmers, and we are not justified in bringing 7000 or 8000 farmers under the operation of an award for 'the sake 'of benefiting a small number of day labourers who are paid less than 7s | a day. As. will be 6een hereafter, a recommendation is made on this subject, and farmers will no- doubt see the wisdom of giving effect tp this recommendation. I So far. as fixing hours ot work and wages j Jure* concerned, mere "would have" been no difficulty in*, making an award with regard "workers who, axe employed specially to do^lharveat work, but 'there seemed to be no' necessity for" the interference of the court in the matter. The evidence shows that during harvest the houre of work range from 10 to 12 per day, and that general harvest hands employed by the' Boor are .paid, as a rule, Is per hour and found,, while stackers are paid from Is 3d to Is 6d per hour and found ; and that when workers are engaged by the week for the work the. wage most generally paid is 50a per week and found. General farm hands are also employed to 'do harvesting work, and are paid a bonus in addition to their ordinary weekly wa/ges. This bonus * does not seem to be fixed on any settled principle, and the court has made a recommendation on this subject, to which farmers, doubtless, will give due consideration. We propose to deal now with the sub- i Sect of shepherds, musterers, and packers. The court made an award this year in the { Otago and Southland district, dealing with anustererß, and we have not been convinced ithat there is any reason why a similar award should not be made with regard to musterers and packers in th£ Canterbury district. We propose, therefore, to make an award between the union and the Sheepowners' Union, fixing the minimum 'wages of musterers at the rate fixed by the Otago- and Southland award, and fixing those of packers employed in connection [with mustering at 30a per week. The award \ will apply only to workers rwho -are engaged specifically as musterers or -packers- Any regular farm or station hand who assists in mustering or who is employed, in packing will not come within the scop© of the award. We have not been satisfied that there is ■my necessity to make an award dealing ;with the subject of shepherds' wages, or that these workers desire the interference of the court in ' this marter. Shepherds are engaged usually at a. yearly salary, and are provided with board and lodging, and in some cases have privileges in addition. The salaries paid- range from £65 to £120 toer annum— this last-mentioned sum being the salary paid to a head shepherd on one station. The question of a living wage, therefore, doce not arise in the case of shepherds. The union called as witnesses in connection with the demands as to shepherds several workers who have been employed as shepherds, but of these only two were actually employed as shepherds at the date -when they gave evidence before the board. Mr Kennedy said that a large number of Shepherds had joined the union, but he could not give any definite information as 'to the number of shepherds who are now members of the union. Whatever that number may be, it is certain that the detaands of the union with regard to snepSheardß did not originate in any general dissatisfaction on the part of shepherds with their condition, or in any general desire tm 'their part to have their wages increased. •Wo have decided, therefore, to leave the wages, and other conditions of shepherds to lac settled, as heretofore, by agreement between the parties. TV The following are the recommendations ;whiob. the court makes to all farmers in 'the industrial district: — . ' 1. That all day labourers who receive ■pnly a money payment for their services ghall be paid not less than 7s per day. ' 2. That when general farm hands are employed at harvesting the bonus to- be jkMd to. them shall be 6uch a turn as will

make their wages, for the time they areactually engaged in harvest work, not less than. 50s per week. 3. That whenever it is reasonably practicable each farm worker shall be allowed" a half-holiday on one day of the week, if he desires it. 4. That each regular farm worker shall be allowed at least one week's holiday in the yeaor on full pay. 5. That when general farm hands have to milk cows twice" a day they shall be allowed an interval for rest during the day, in addition to the ordinary dinner hour, except, of course, at the busy seasons of the year. Mr M'Cullough does not concur in this judgment. He is strongly of opinion that grounds exist which justify and render necessary the interference of the court, and that it ' is possible io make a workable award on the subject. This award shall come into force on the first day of September. 1908, and shall continue in force until the Ist day of May, 1910.