SHEARERS AND SHED HANDS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 21

SHEARERS AND SHED HANDS.

APPLICATION FOR AWARD. CHRISTCHURCH. June 30. The Arbitration Court was to-day occu pied in hearing an application for a new Dominion Shearers and Shed Hand Workers’ award. The principal clauses to be settled by the court concerned rates cf pay and hours of work (a 44-hour week being demanded). It was stipulated that the rates of pay for blade shearers be not less than 37s 6d per 100, and 32s 6d per 100 for machine shearers, as the former were at a great disadvantage in comparision with the latter. Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Mr W. Scott, for the employers, and Mr A. L. Monteith for the employees. Mr W. H. Nicholson, secretary of the New Zealand Sheep Owners’ Federation, Mr R. Wanden, secretary of the Marlborough Sheep Owners’ Union, and Mr R. M. ("hadwick, secretary of the Hawke’s Bay Sheep Owners’ Union, appeared for the employers, and Mr A. Cook. General secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union, and Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Alliance of Labour, represented the employees. Mr Cook, in a statement to the court, said that the application was made to bind 1455 employers as parties to an award of the court in Otago, Southland. Marlborough. Wellington, and the northern industrial districts. It was unfortunate that so many causes should be left for the court to settle. This, however, was accounted for by the unconciliatorv attitude adopted by employers before the Con ciliation Council, when they refused to discuss the workers’ claims, with the exception of those embodied in the expired award. They also refused to recognise the claims made for crutchera. The union claimed a 44-hour working week, which wa3 already in operation in a large number of industries throughout the Dominion. The hours as worked in New Zealand were altogether unreasonable, and no bodv of men should be forced to work from 5 a.m. to 5 n.m, in order 'o get in pight hours and 40 minutes work a day. Blade shearers were at a great disadvantage in comparison with machine shearers. The coet, of blade shears was a -pry big item. Th© price of this article had increased from 100 to 200 per cent, since 19! 2. For ip nchine shearing ther asked £1 12s 6d per 100. with rations this being an in crease of 2s 6d per 100 over the rate paid in the Dominion for a number of years. Vccord'ng to the increased, cost of living they were fullv entitled to this rate, which the union considered to he bare’v. sufficient to nllow the men to make a living wage during the time thev were occupied in this casual industry. A number of employers were already paving the demanded rates, pud this proved they were not excessive. For stud sheep they n«ked that the rate be not less than rate and a-half, which was a veTy rea-onable reemest. The present award in this resDect laid it down that the rate for 'hearing stud sheen should be settled by agreement between the employer and the shearer This svstem they had found was most unsatisfactory and caused a great deal of trouble and lost time. The court b.ad a precedent to go oh in this respect, because in Queensland and other Australian States courts had fixed special rates for shearing stud sheep. For all rams and double-fleeced sheep thev asked for the double ordinary rates, and there should be no hesitation in granting this. For merino sheep they asked that the rote be increased by 7s 6d per 100 in case of blade shearing, and 5s in the case of machines. Combs *nd cutters were very costly, and since 1914 this article had increased by over 100 ner cent, in price, and they again asked the court to stipulate in the new award that all shearing renuLitas must he found by the employer. Mr Cook next referred to the rates of pay for shed hands and cooks. For pressers’ work they were asking bv the week, £5, or by the hour 2a 6d. For piece rate, by hand Is a owt, or 3s a bale; by power 9d a owt. or 2s a bale. For all other shed hands they asked a weekly wage of £4 ss. or by the hour. 2s 3d. For cooks for 12 men or under, they asked £7 per week; for cooks’ assistants. £5 a week. Where over 12 men are em ployed they ask that the cooks shall be paid 7s 6d a week for each person over 12, in addition to the above rate. The present award rate for presaera provides • wage of £3 2s 6d for men employed by the week, and It lOd if employed by the hour. In the majority of caaea presaera were employed by the week and it was often necessary for them to work from 10

to 11 hours a day in order to keep the wool suppressed up. For all other shed hands the present rate was, by the week, £2 17s 6d. and by the hour, Is Bd. On account of the casual nature of the industry this rate should be greatly increased. The workers asked tor the abolitiou of the youths' clause of the present award, as a youth or Native girl between the ages of 16 and 18 ranked amongst the smartest of shed workers, and were quite capable of earning, and entitled to be paid, the adult shed hand’s minimum wage. He would ask the court to pay special attention to shearers’ cooks. The present wage of £3 12s 6d a week tor 12 men, or under, was a ridiculous one. The hours of a shearers’ cook on the lowest estimate were 17 for six days of the week and 14 on Sundays, a total of 116 hours a week, which worked out at exactly 7Jd an hour. Mr Cook also submitted argument in regard to the following matters: —Grindstones, provision of tools, engagement of workers, limitation of agreement, a union ticket as a deposit for rations, fares, lost time, Sundays and Christmas Day as holidays, lighting of dining room, contract work, sheep to be dragged, preference to unionists, term of agreement. EMPLOYERS’ CASE PRESENTED CHRISTCHURCH, July 1. “Instead of enjoying a period of prosperity, the sheep-farming industry is being hard squeezed between the lower millstone of high costs'and the upper one of low returns.” That was one of the main arguments put forward for the employers against the application of the shearers and shed hands of New Zealand for a new award in the Arbitration Court to-day. In his address to the court, Mr Nicholson said that, from his review of recent awards, it was fair to conclude that: 1. It was the established practice of the court to protect the workers against any reduction in the standard of living. 2. Shearers and shed hands shared in the prosperity of the sheep-farming industry v/nen that industry was prosperous. 3. They did not share in the depression when the industry was greatly depressed, because the court’s award took care to maintain their standard 4. The sheep-farmers who had shared their prosperity with the workers when prosperous had to bear the whole burden of the depression alone when their industry was depressed, “The principle, therefore, upon which the court has based its awards,” continued Mr Nioholson, “has been that of maintaining the workers’ standard. Sheep-farmers have accepted this principle, and have loyally complied with tne awards of the court, even though it meant hardship to them. They are still content to accept that same principle, even though it still operates against them to some extent. To see the court adhere to its established practice, and to make an award' that will maintain the workers’ standard of living, as laid down in the court’s memorandum of 1921, the employers are content that the workers should retain their advantage, and that the award rates should remain as at present. The

only possible ground on which a claim for rates higher tnan this might be made is that the sheep-farming industry is again in a very prosperous condition, and that the workers, despite the fact that they did not share in its depression, are entitled to share again in its prosperity. Such claims will not bear investigation. Wool prices have certainly risen since the abnormal slump of 1921. They were fairly high in the 1923-4 season and higher .in 1924-5, but they have fallen very heavilv since then, and there appears now but little prospect of any appreciable rise in the near future. On an average over the last six years prices have been only 33 per cent, above their 1914 level. AH farm costs have risen with the general rise in prices. The pro duction of wool is by no means confined to wealthy sheep-farmers, but the great majority are comparatively poor and struggling hard to make their farms pay. It is fair to assume that on the average the farmer’s costs of production have increased about 67 per cent, since 1914. Our European markets are in a hazardous condition and tn© United States, which normally takes but little of our wool, has also a high protective tariff against us. All these things considered, the prospects for the next season’s wool prices are not bright, and the average price of the last six vears appears to be the safest basis for calculations. There could be no question that it was not possible to bring factory conditions into operation when dealing with live stock on the farm, more particularly on hill country of any size where large mobs of ewes and lambs, and other sheep, had to be brought some distance to and from the sheds. The collection of union tickets by the employers was, in their opinion, not required, and of no value to them. No man, on being engaged, was asked whether or not he was a member of the union. Preference to unionists could not be given effect to in this industry and would operate most unjustly to small far--mers and working men who had to strengthen their incomes from the farm by shearing locally. “I submit,” continued Mr Nicholson, “that the fixing of a flat rate for crutching is impracticable of application without serious injustice being done to the employers. Crutching is unlike the operation of shearing which is practically tne same throughout New Zealand. It is not skilled work in any sense, and any farm hand is quite competent to do crutching. This work is usually done in the slack season and at a time when there is a gap in the ordinary routine of sheep work, and if an award is made the tendency will be to upset the smooth working of the ordinary sheep farm.” Mr Cook replied to the statements by Mr Nicholson. He paid particular attention to the application for a minimum rate for crutching. If, as Mr Nicholson said, farmers did not crutch their sheep in the event of a rate being struck, the sheep owners would probably lose up to 50 per cent, of their ewes. The union had no quarrel with the smaller men—the struggling “cockies,” —who generally paid a rate higher than the minimum, but the quarrel was with 2000 of the wealthiest men in the country. “Those gentlemen up the East Coast who owned racehorses and who provided accommodation in which it was not fit to tie up a Maori dog.” The union, continued Mr Cook, had an exceptional case, and he thought they were 75 or 80 points ahead now in the bout. Mr Roberts said the cast for the employers was the Unsupported testimony of Mr Nicholson himself. The minimum rate for worker# was generally becom-

ing the maximum throughout New Zealand, but the shearing industry was an exception. Some of the wealthy owners, however, would give nothing above the minimum rate. No reason existed for the court to adopt a conservative attitude towards the men. Why did not Mr Nicholson bring forward evidence? Mr Nicholson: I had nothing to answer. Mr Roberts: You have none to give. The employers, he continued, wished them to believe that the shearers were affluent men, yet on a cost-of-living basis they were entitled to 32s 5d per 100. A great many of the workers had recovered the reductions of 1921 and 1922. Why could not the shearers? On the wool prices they would be entitled to 44s 8d per 100. It could be shown that the rate for cooks worked out at 7ld per hour. The court reserved judgment. Mr Justice Frazer said that in the course of a week or two they might be able to make some pronouncement. They wished to announce their decision before the shearing season opened.