THRESHING MILL WORKERS

Otago Witness, Issue 3590, 2 January 1923, Page 10

THRESHING MILL WORKERS

COURT’S AWARD REVIEWED. OWNERS’ APPIjIOATTON FOR REDUCTION REFUSED. OHRIST'CSrITJRCH, December 21. The Arbitration Court has declined to make the per cent, wage cut for which the North Canterbury threshing mill owners applied this week, but it was allowed the May and November general bonus reductions. In its judgment the court says: “The employers claimed a greater reduction than the two made by the court’s general order on two grounds: (a) That the price of the new season’s wheat was not guaranteed by the Government and (b) that the fanners were unable to pay the present threshing rates which were fixed when the prices for cereals were higher and more stable.” After reviewing the wage rates provided by the award less the two cuts the court says:— “On piecework, taking the average working week as 50 hours, the net wage works out at Is per hour and found. When the conditions of the work are takleoi into consideration it oannot be said that Is 7*d per hour and found is excessive at the present time. Farmers gave evidence stating that Is 6d per hour and found was the ruling wage for ordinary harvest labour in the district, and it seems to us that an hour is not an unreasonable margin. We do not think wages can be reduced much below the amount indicated by the cost of living statistics without unduly affecting the standard of living of the workers. Regarding the ability of the farmers to pay the threshing rates, it appears from the evidence that on last year’s rates about 3d a. bushel represented wages. It does not seem to us that a reduction of the rates of wages can materially affect the position of the farmers. If it costs 6d or Is more a bushel to grow wheat than the sale of the wheat will realise the relief must come from some other source than wages alone. However, other costs are coming down and we are inclined to the view that it will be found that stores, coal, repairs, etc., will cost loss next season than they did last season. The question of the desirability of New Zealand continuing to grow all the wheat needed for local consumption was discussed, but we do not think that matter is one on which we should express an opinion. The granting of subsidies is a matter for the Government and Parliament to decide. In any event the financial position of the farmers does not depend on the price of cereals alone. North Canterbury farmers all go in for mixed farming, and the prices now obtainable for wool mutton, lamb, and butter are considerably higher than it was generally expected they would be. The farmers will naturally grow what it best- pays them to grow, and although the threshing mill owners will be prejudicially affected if less wheat and other cereals are grown, we are satisfied that a severe reduction in the mill workers’ wages would not materially affect the situation, and it would inflict undue hardship on the

men. For these reasons we have decided not to reduce the rates of remuneration below the rates now payable under the award.”