THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2949, 21 September 1910, Page 21

THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

(BEFORE CONCILIATION COMMISSIONERS.

BREACH OF FAITH BY WORKERS

REFUSAL TO ABIDE BY AWARD CHRI3TCHURCH, September 13.

The now famous shearers' dispute was advanced a stage further to-day, when it came before a special commission consisting of the three Conciliation Commissioners—Messrs J. R. Triggs (chairman), T. Harle Giles, and P. Hally. Mr Laracy (with him Mr F. Waddell) appeared for the Canterbury Shearers' Union, and Mr >W. Pryor for the Canterbury Sheep - owners' Union.

Mr-Triggs said the three commissioners had been asked by the executive of the Canterbury Sheep-own ere' union and the executive of the Canterbury Shearers' Union to take evidence regarding the dispute and tile a recommendation in the matter with the clerk of awards. They were sitting in quite a private capacity as private individuals, and his colleagues would be as well pleased as he himself if they were able to file a recommendation that would be satisfactory to both parties. Both parties could rest assured that the commissioners would do their best to treat them fairly. The reason why he had suggested that the dispute should be referred to such a tribunal was that he had seen that the Arbitration Court had been placed in a very awkward position and that the employers were similarly embirrassed. He particularly desired to save the Arbitration Act, for he had seen that if the union began to say that they were not going to abide by the decision of the court it was goodbye to the Arbitration Act. They could all agree that that would be a bad day's work for the workers of New Zealand. Each of the two parties had signed an agreement that, whatever the award of the court was, it would faithfully abide by the provisions of the award. Mr Pryor said that before going into the merits of the case he wished to ascertain on behalf of the employers definitely what the position was. An undertaking had been given by both, parties that the award framed on the recommendations of the commissioners, whatever it might be, would be observed, and it was that undertaking that had made it possible for the parties to ask the commissioners to deal with the case. Had it not been for that undertaking it would have been impossible for them to have secured the services of the commissioners, and not only impossible but useless. Their services having been obtained, the employers were hopeful that a way would be found out of the difficulty. He regretted, therefore, to have to raise anything that appeared to obstruct a means of settling the dispute, but unless the position was such as it was represented to be by the agreement it was useless for the proceedings to be continued. He wished to refer to the meeting held at Waimate during the previous week, at which Messrs Laracy (secretary of the Shearers' Federation), Waddell (secretary of the Canterbury Shearers' Union), and Costello (secretary of the Otago Shearers' Union) were present. First of all, he wanted to know whether 'Mr Laracy was secretary of the federation, whether as such he was chief executive officer of that body, and whether the federation by its constitution and general rules controlled the shearers of the Dominion.

Mr Laracy: That is so. Continuing. Mr Laracy asked whether the commissioners proposed to deal with the dispute with a view to the framing of a Dominion award.

Mr Triggs said that their attention must be confined to the dispute of the Canterbury Shearers' Union. Mr Pryor then went on to refer to newspaper reports of the Waimate meeting. Mr Laracy. he said, had declared that "if they don't get it" (that was, £l per 100) there would be no shearers this season. Mr Laracy had also stated that they had the right not to go to work until they got their price, and that was £1 per 100. Mr Laracy suggested that the report was inaccurate, and that it should not be accepted by the council. When urged by Mr Pryor o say definitely whether or not he had made the statements quoted, Mr Laracy said that the report was incorrect in some respects, but he was not going to say where it was right and where it was wrong. Mr Pryor insisted that before the case -was proceeded with Mr Laracy should give an undertaking on behalf' of the Shearers' Federation that not only would they ahide by the award that might be drawn up by the Arbitration Court, but also that no steps would be taken to prevent the men from accepting work if they desired to do so at the rate fixed by th* award, supposing that the court decided that the rate should be under £1 per 100

A lengthy, and at times, heated discussion ensued, Mr Triggs supporting Mr Pryor in what he considered was a fair request, and Mr Gilee urging that the question should be dropped and that evidence should be taken without further discussion. Mr Waddell declared that the Canterbury Union had signed an undertaking. and it was prepared to abide by the award of the court without reservation of any kind.

Mr La racy finally declared that he would not be gagged in the way the employee proposed. v lf he was asked to give an undertaking" that he would not hold meetings and advise the men that they need not work for the minimum rate fixed by the court, and that they would be wrong in doing eo. he refused point blank to give any such undertaking. Mr Trigge : Then that ends the sitting. Mr flally: This is an important matter. and I don't think it should be disposed of so hurriedly. The representatives of the union are evidently divided in their opinions. Cannot thev meet Mr Ttiaml

Mr Waddell: We have already signed that document, and we are quite prepared to -abide by the findings of the commissioners.

After further discussion, Mr Hally re marked that what the commision wanted was that if the court found 15s, as a minimum wage Mr Laracy would not go stumping the country advising the men not to take less than £l.

Mr Laracy: Any fair-minded body of men could not give less than £l. Father desultory and acrimonious discussion followed, and eventually the conference was adjourned till noon to allow of some compromise being made or an arrangement come to. On resuming at noon Ma- Triggs said he had drawn up the following _ undertaking for the union representatives to agree to: —"That in the event of the award of the Arbitration Cjurt being less than 20s per 100 no action shall be taken by the eecutive officers of the Sheep Shearers' Federation to prevent shearers from working at the minimum rate."

Mr Triggs said there was nothing to prevent an executive officer of the union to advise a man to get more than the minimum rate provided he did not "interfere with the man's work.

Mr Prvor: If Mr Laracy signed that undertaking would he consider himself free to give public addresses on the subject? Mr Laracy: Yes- Continuing, Mr Laracy claimed that it was the right of prevent an executive officer of the union to advise the men that 15s was only the minimum rate.

Mr Hally said he saw no reason for Mr Laracy or any other officer of the Shearers' Union to go round and preach the doctrines he proposed. After some further disoussion Mr Pryor said that if the federation would give an undertaking that Mr Laracy or any other official of the federation would not go round the country giving addresses the same as that given at Waimate the employers were prepared to go on. Mr Triggs (to Mr Laracy) : If the employers had done the same as you have you would take up exactly the same stand as Mr Pryor has done.

At the chairman's suggestion it was resolved to further adjourn the conferonce till 2 o'clock to see if some conciliatory arrangement could not be come to in the meantime.

Upon ie<suming at 2 o'clock, Mr Laracy proceeded to read a statement, but was interrupted by Mr Pryor, who stated that the employers wanted a straightout reply to their questions. Mr Laracy proceeded to argue that he should be allowed to read the statement. The Chairman: After what has ap r peared in the public press you must enter into a public undertaking to abide by the decision of the court before this commission will take evidence. After some further discussion the chairman gave Mr Laracy permission to read the statement, which he did. The statement said that on July 26 it had been agreed to refer the dispute to the three commdssioiners, axid during the sitting of the Arbitration Court the following day the case had been further adjourned to enable such a course to be adopted. There had been no justification for either party to demand further conditions since there had been already one agreement in existence.

The Chairman : All I want from you is, Will you agree, on behalf of the federation, to what I draw up? Mr Laracy: I will give no undertaking whatever,'and, if compelled to do so, I shall resign my position, if the employers wish €o precipitate a great industrial crisis on tneir head by it. Mr Pryor. in reply to Mr Laracy's charges, said the Canterbury Sheep-ow-ners' Union and employers had never refused to carry out the agreement made, but when an official of the federation at a public meeting, had so misused his position as to try to incite men to refuse to shear under 20s per 100 the employers had taken up their present stand. At this stage the commissioners retired to confer, and shortly afterwards requested the attendance of Mr Laracy and Mr Prvor.

After a long retirement, the Chairman stated that before announcing the commissioners' finding he wished to know whether Mr Laracy was Drepared to sign the undertaking required by the employers. Mr Laracy : No. Mr Triggs : Is there any possibility of the employers and the employees coming to any agreement at all ? Mr Laracy : I think, Mr Chairman, that that is for you to say. The Chairman then read the commissioners' finding, which was as follows : " The unanimous decision of th§ commissioners is that, seeing that the secretary of the Shearers' Federation will not enter into any undertaking as suggested by the employers—namely, not to do anything to prevent shearers from working at less than 20s per 100 should the award of the court be for less than that rate, the commissioners cannot make any recommendation." The Chairman said he would have liked a settlement to be brought about, and he regretted the position/that had arisen. The conference then closed. CHRISTCHURCH, September IS

Mr Waddell (secretary to the Canterbury Shearers' Union) yesterday said that he was prepared to make what he called a sporting offer to the sheepownerH. From a conversation a Star reporter had with Mr Waddell this morning, it apptars that the sporting offer was really an ultimatum. Mr Waddell said the shearers were ready to go to work at £1 per 100. This offer would remain open till Friday night, and if the employers would not accept the offer the shearers would go straight out for 22fi 6d p&r 100. The men, said Mr Waddell. had displayed the utmost patience, and had made all possible efforts to bring a-Knut a. naaeeful settlement. They had

been humbugged right from the jump. Labour was short in Australia, and Australian shearers would not come to New Zealand, so that owners had to rely on local men. He had done his best to smooth out the difficulties, but he believed the owners wanted to force a, fight, and the men had to make preparations accordingly. His offer to accept the North Island award would remain open till to-morrow night. If hostilities commencfad after that the fault would be with thfc owners.

BREACH STILL OPEN. CHRISTCHUECH, September 14. Further conciliatory attempts to heal up the differences in the shearing dispute, for the present at anvrate. failed. Last night Mr J.' R. Triggs and Mr P. Haliy, two of the Conciliation Commissioners, interviewed the representatives of the disputant parties, and asked them to confer once again with the commissioners this morning. Mr W. Pryor and Mr H. D. Ackland, the employers' representatives, did not see their way to agree to this, and an informal conference was held instead between the two commissioners and Messrs F. Waddell and King, the men's representatives. It, however, came to nothing. It is understood that the shearers were willing to make what they- termed a " sporting" offer, to remain open till the end of the week, but no definite arrangements were made. Subsequently Mr Triggs requested the employers' representatives to state definitely in writing what they desired from the men, but the employers' representatives could not see their way to negotiate any further at present.

NEW DEPARTURE BY WORKER 3. PROPOSAL TO DEMAND 22s 6d. On Friday night Mr W. Pryor, secretary of the Now Zealand Employers' Federation; received the following telegram from Mr F. Waddeli, secretary of the Canterbury Shearers' Union:—"Shearers' Federation is taking a vote on Saturday for 22s 6d per hundred. What steps are you taking? Settlement urgent." To this Mr Pryor replied : —" Employers will abide by the decision of the Arbitration Court."

Mr Pxyor went north by the second express on Saturday. Before taking his departure he made the statement that the position, so far as the employers were concerned, was unaltered. If a definite undertaking was given by the Shearers' Union that the court's award would be honourably

observed, .ijid that no steps would be taken by the union to prevent men from shearing at less than 20s per 100 if the award of the court was less than that rate, then ihe employers were prepared to abide by whatever decision might be arrived at by the court as a result of the recommendations of the three Conciliation Commissioners. _ ■ Mr J. R. Triggs, one of the Conciliation Commissioners, left for the r.orth by the second express on Saturday. Mr P. Hally remains in Dunedin for a day or two. Mr M. Laracy, secretary of the Shearers' Federation, also left for Chrietchurch on Saturday morning. Wo understand that the Conciliation Commissioners are still hopeful of a settlebeing arrived at. WELLINGTON UNION CONTENT WITH 20s. MASTERTON, September 19. Mr E. W. Abbott states that the Wellington Shearers' Union deprecate the statement by the Canterbury Union that unless the employers agree to their terms they will raise the price to 22s 6d per hundred. The Wellington Union will adhere to their demand for 20s a hundred. LABOUR'S SYMPATHY. CHRISTCHURCH, September 16. Mr Laracy, general secretary of the Shearers' Union, has received telegrams from Mr R. Semple (president of the Federation of Labour) and Mr Lrlover (secretarv) congratulating the shearers on the stand they have taken. " Your fight is our fight," is the burden of the messages. ADJOURNED TO WELLINGTON. The much-discussed Otago shearers' dispute oassed through a brief and inconsequential phase before the Conciliation Council on Friday morning, when much breath and temper were wasted by at least one of the representatives. The council was specially manned for the occasion, and consisted of Mr Triggs (Conciliation Commissioner), and Mr Hally (commissioner for the Wellington district) as assessor for the workers. Mr Giles (commissioner for the Auckland district), who was to have sat as assessor for the emplo3'ers, did not appeal-, and the employers were represented bv Mr Pryor. Mr Hally said he did not think they would be able to go fair in the matter. The arrangement was that if an agreement was arrived at in Christ/*buroh they in Otago would fall in with it. No arrangement having been arrived at in Christchurch, nothing could bo done. Mr Pryor said that, the Sheen-ownera' Union was prepared to accept for Otaeo any agreement arrived at in Christchurch. The Canterbury dispute had been referred to the court, and the emoloyers had accepted that position. They simply requested the council to refer this dispute to the Arbitration Court, and had no evidence to offer. Mr Laracy, appearing for the men, argued that when the Board of Tncmiry sat at Christchurch it was supposed to take evidence and make a recommendation to the court. He protected against the attitude of that Board of Inquiry, which, instead of taking evidence and going on with the case, had listened for about four hours to an application from the emplovors to p-et a further undertaking from the union. In regard to Otago. there had been no arrangement between the two parties that they were going to agree to what had been done at Obriatohureh. and he had come to the conclusion that a fight was being forced upon the shearers, who had to come out and protect themselves as best thev could. The Commissioner replied that when this dispute left the court, be had suggested that they should refer the matter to the comrmission, which would take evidence and make & recommendation: but th« cammifs--ir"~" •™»**4 *n undertalcinar team both

sidea that they wouM abide by ihe award of the court after the commissioners had made their recommendation. Both sides had signed the undertaking. In the meantime the representatives of the Sheaiere' Union met at Waimate, and the statement was made there that they would not shear for less than £1 a hundred, thus nullifying the undertaking which both sides had sugned. It was practically dictating to the commissioners that unless they made a recommendation for £1 a hundred the shearers would not abide by the recommcMiclaition.

Mr Laracy contended that what had transpired subsequent to the signing of that agreement had nothing to do with the case. The shearers were willing to accent any award of the court, and abide by it conscientiously. Mr Triggs: You may have your view, Mr Laracy. I have mine.

Mr Laracy went on to maintain somewhat hj-vserically that had Mr Triggs done his duty that day this undertaking would never have been entered into.

Mr Triggs (warmly): I don't want you, or any other man, to tell me how to do my duty. I am quite satisfied with the course 1 have taken, and, look here, Mr Laracy, as long as I am Conciliation Commissioner I am not going to be made a cat's paw of by anyone, and that is how you have been trying to use me. Mr Laracy continued to pour forth words and to miss the point with astonishing dexterity.

An assessor remarked that all this was most irrelevant and undignified. Further, •it had been thrashed out over and over again. They had better let the matter go to the court.

Mr Laracy again ' talked. The Commissioner (to Mr Laracy): You have treated the commissioners unfairly—very badly indeed. You have acted very injudiciously. Mr Triggs and Mr Hally then conferred with Mr Laracy; after which Mr Hally announced that they had decided to adjourn this dispute to Wellington, on Wednesday, September 21. Mr Laracy wished to find out exactly what he could do, and

Mr Laracy: I am not going to allow that statement to be put into the papers. Mr Hally (continuing): And in order to give the shearers an opportunity of conferring with their federation. _ *"' Mr Laraoy. as the council adjourned, said that personally ho was against having anything signed in connection with this matter. THE POSITION EXPLAINED. Mr J. R. Triggs, Oooiiiation Commissioner for this district, seen by a Daily Times reporter in the evening, made th© following statement as to the position-: " This case," he said,—" that is, the Canterbury case, —came before the Conciliation Council in the first place, and the council referred tho dispute to the Arbitration Court for a settlement. The .emplovers and the workers decided that it was to be referred to the three Conciliation Commissioners (Messrs Triggs, Hally, and Giles) to make a recommendation upon which the court, if it saw- fit, should make its award, and both parties agreed to abide by the court's award, whatever it was, and signed an undertaking to this effect. The court adjourned the case till September 22 for this to take place". That agreement was made on the distinct 'Understanding that no steps would be taken by the Shearers' Federation to prevent men from working at less than 20s per 100 if the court awarded less than that rate. Sine© that, however, a meeting of the shearers in that district was held at Waimate, and Mr Laracy (secretary of the Shearers' Federation) then said : ' If they don't get it (that is, £1 per 100) there -will be no shearers this season.' Mr Laracy also said: 'They had a right not to go to work until they got their price, and that was £1 per 100. The court can say what it likes.' I undersitand, however," continued Mr Triggs, " that in the event of the shearers entering into an undertaking that they will not interfere with men working at the award rate should it be under £1 per 100, the employers are still prepared to abide by their original undertaking for the commissioners to file a recommendation. The Otago Sheep-owners' Association agreed to abide by whatever < elision was arrived at in Canterbury, and the Canterbury dispute liaving been referred to the court, nothing could be done with regard to Otago but to refer it to the court also, although the commissioners have adjourned the matter until Wednesday, September 21, at Wellington, so as to give the Shearers' Union an opportunity of accepting the offer with regard to the undertaking made by the employers."

MEETING OF SHEARERS' MR LARACY'S VIEWS. 'A meeting of shearers called by Mr M. Laracy, secretary of the Shearers' Union,, was held in the Trades Hall on Friday evening, and was well attended. Mr J. Hammond, who was voted to the chair, said the meeting was held to see what the men wero agreeable to do—if they were agreeable to abide by what Mr Laracy had tried to do for them. If thev looked back three or four years they would

find that the shearing rate was 16s 8d 4 hundred, whereas now the award was for 18s, and they were trying to get 20s, which he thought was a fair thing. Mr Laracy said they had done their best with a hard tow to hoe, and after what had happened there was nothing ahead but a solid fight to a finish. They had tried every means in their power to bring about a settlement, but they could not do so. When the employers had oited them with the object of bringing about a reduction of 6d a hundred, they had advised Australian men not to com© over votk.il a settlement was brought about. Since that cablefram was sent to Australia on the 7th lay, constant communication had been kept up, and he had letters from shearers in Australia to the effect that they were not coming over, so they had nothing to fear from them. Mr Laracy then went on to refer to the first case at Masterton, when nothing was done, to the sitting in Ohristchurch, when nothing was done, and to the sitting- in Palmerston North, where nothing had resulted, and they were all well aware of what had resulted here. He proceeded to detail what had occurred at the sittings he had mentioned, and said the employers had demanded an undertaking: from the union, which ho had premised to give, and which they would nave honour ably abided by, but he never got the ohano to sign it. The undertaking simpij meant nothing more than what was alreac'n provided for in the Arbitration Act itself. It simplv stated that they would abide bi the finding of the three Conciliation Conn misaioners, as they would abide bj an award of the Arbitration Court, The Board of Inquiry was sitting in Christchuroh, but six weeks elapsed and nothing was done, and he then communicated with the Hon. Mr Millar, asking him to " shake up" the oomniissißners, as the shearing time Tna coming along. He claimed that the Board of Inquiry should have gone on ana hoard evidence and made a recommendation to tho court. It did not do that. He believed that if an award was made by the judge on the 22nd inst. in Wellington it wouM beoome a Dominion award, but it was " up to ' Otago and Canterbury men to start and look out for themselves. He wanted those present to authorise him to send a cablegram to Australia notifying the Australian shearers of the position. They could pet 30s just as easilv as the 20s, a* it would make very little difference to the employers. He wanted to assure those present that behind them in this fight they had some of the biggest organisations i« New Zealand. They would fight it as fai* workers, and they were going to win i( they had to fight it. If he could faring about a peaceful settlement he would, bu( if they could not do it peaceably thev werjj going to do it. They were not going W strike, but they were simnly going to stay away from the work. He advised the men, if they had to come out and fight, and tM employers said later on they would piv< them 20s to labour as faithfully as thet could They had only to put their head* together and say thev were going to firm. As to shed hands, he had been ask©? what the executive was going to do. Th) shed hands had never been before th 4 court, but ho maintained that they wer* a section of the workers. They were nol general hands, and they were as much entitled to an award as anv class of worker* jn New Zealand. He did not see hoW the judge could refuse to make an awar< for shed hands. With regard to the stant they were going to take, Canterbury an< Otago were in this position: the shearing would ba upon them before any settlement could be brought about, and many men had scrit out for stands without knowing what they were going to get. If a maS had engaged a stand in anv shed and th? price had not been stipulated, mo agree, meat existed, and the men could go away, i-io did not ihink there was oM shod in New Zealand that had be©3 filled at te than 20s a hundred; and ho did not think the employers wen objecting to the 20s, but they were out fc< boat this organisation. It was intended ti put the position, plainlv to the men, and they were going to block the Australian men from coming here. They were goinrf to ask thoni to stay away, and they wen going to ask th© m>en w.ho djd go shearing to try to sell their labour at as high a pric4 as they could. They looked upon the ?0( per 100 as a fair price for shearing. Mi Laracy hero branched off. and stated thai the man who went and sheared at a shed on the plains (presumably Canterbury), where tiie sheep farmer was poorer, rewired 20*. but when he went back tc shear for the big men these offered 2s lees, With regard to the North Island shearing was just upon them, and thev had goj two organisers out among th© Maoris, and he noticod bv a Press Association mc><:'ag« that at Hastings the Maoris had unanimously carried a resolution that they would not shear at under 20s a 100. The Canter. bury men wore as solid as they could be. and if they (the Otago men) only stood solid, he said, Let them so out and put the prico up to 22s 6d. Mr WaddeJl (Can. terburv) was out to fight, and he had a hit following. The men had. he repeated, tW sympathy of big organisations of labout brhind thecn in this struggle, and he hoped it would not be a struggle, but if it was it would be foroed upon thean by the wool kin«ra of New Zealand. If an attempt wa< mad© to put the price up beyond €os latex

on he urged them to stand together. He did not think 10 per cent, of the Australians who had com© over in previous years would come this year. They did not want any trouble, and were only asking what 80 per cent, of the farmers in the South Island had been paying for a long time. H© asked them if_ they got the 20s not to go out and exploit the small man, and try to make him pay 25s because shearers were scarce. The court in all cases fixed the minimum rate, but he was quite justified in urging the men not to work for less than a fair rata They had a perfeot right to get as much more as they could over the minimum rate. T.hev were not going to be gagged by anyone, and this had been attempted. He had been accused of signing away the liberty of the shearers, but he had never put a scratch of the pen to any undertaking to the employers. Mr 8. Boreham made some remark's reflecting- upon the veracity of one of the commissioners, and moved that a branch of the union be formed in Dunedin, and a small committee of management appointed, the performance of the duties of which 'Trere to be treated as purely honorary. Mr ;J. Jennings seconded the motion, and jj.r Laracy, speaking in support of it, .minted out the advantage of having district committees for the distribution of information. The motion was carried.

r Mr H. T Eain was appointed president; Mr J. Jennings, vice-president; Mr J. E. MaoManus, secretary; and Messrs J. Doyle. J. Murphy, W. Jackson, J. Windus, and £). Boreham, a committee. Mr MaoManus moved that the meeting support the executive in the action it had taken in connection with the shearers' dispute. In his judgment Mr Laracy had taken a wise course, and if the shearers wanted any improvement it was obvious there was only one method of getting it. and that was by refusing to go out and accept engagement under the price of 20. s a 100. What wore they asking for? Something like one-fortieth of the improved price of the clip. The motion was carried, and Mr Laracy then proceeded to advocate the claims of the new Labour paper.