FARM LABOURERS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3885, 28 August 1928, Page 13

FARM LABOURERS.

ANNUAL HOLIDAY LEAVE. LABOUR BILL INTRODUCED. WELLINGTON, August 23. The adverse effect which the introduction of compulsion into the granting of annual leave would exercise on the present amicable relationships between the rural employers and employees was stressed in the House of Representatives to-day dpring the debate on the first reading of the Workers’ Annual Leave Bill, promoted by Mr D. G. Sullivan (Avon). Air Sullivan said the Bill proposed to make legislative provision for the granting, on completion of 12 months’ continuous employment, of one week’s annual leave on full pay to every worker in New Zealand not otherwise covered in that regard. Manual workers particularly would benefit by the legislation. Similar provision had been made in nearly all the countries of Europe. Under the Bill one week was fixed as the minimum to be granted. “ I hope we will not ' have the conditions brought into this country that the Continental workers have,” said Mr T. Al. Wilford (Hutt). The Leader of the’Opposition (Mr H. E. Holland) : This Bill refers only to holidays.. Mr Wilford said the weakness of the Bill lay in the risk that the bad employer, at whom the legislation was no doubt directed, might dispense with a worker just before the completion of the 12 months’ employment. Mr P. Fraser (Wellington Central) congratulated Mr Sullivan on the introduction of the Bill. The measure no doubt provided for the point raised byMr Wilford. In the opinion of Mr R. Al'Keen (Wellington South) there was an urgent need for the legislation. He considered that the workers were entitled to more than a week’s leave. They should have a fortnight. Mr G. W. Forbes (Hurunui) said he did not object to the principle of annual leave, but he did object to imposing more regulations on the employers. It would be better, in his opinion, to leave the question to the workers and the emloyers themselves rather than to have compulsion. “ I think this Bill is a quiet but direct effort to oragnise the rural workers of this Dominion,” declared Mr W. S. Glenn (Rang'itikei). “Up to now the Labour Party has not succeeded in doing that, although it has tried frequently to do so.” Mr Glenn added that he and the neighbours in his district had always given their hands a fortnight’s leave on full pay. They were certainly entitled to a fortnight’s holiday, but he did not want to see any hard and fast rule laid down. It was the practice already for the farmers to grant holiday leave to their employees at suitable times. He believed there was an underlying motive behind the Bill. A member: Yes. A nigger in the woodpile. Air W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) denied that the purpose of the Bill was to organise the rural workers, and expressed surprise that Mr Glenn should make such a statement. A large number of workers were not receiving a week’s leave, and the object of the measure was solely to bring them all into line. Mr Parry argued that the farmers were onlyone link in the chain of national productivity, and other sections were playing an equal part in the completion of the finalised product. The Minister of Lands (Air A. D. Al'Leod) recommended Air Parry- to repeat his statements about the farming community in some of the rural constituencies, such as Raglan. Air Parry: I will make them anywhere. Air Al'Leod said he believed the proposals in the Bill were made, perhaps rightly, for providing a law for the secondary industry workers, without a proper understanding of the conditions that existed between the primary producers and their employees Any rural employer worthy of the name granted his hands annual leave in addition to days off for football matches, etc. • Immediately, however, the principle of compulsion was applied and the .farmer had to submit his pay-roll to scrutiny as to the number of days granted there would be antagonism, and only a week’s leave would result. “An amicable state of affairs exists between the rural employer and his employee that does not . exist between the town employer and his employee,” added the Alinister. “ Those who are responsible for the organisation of industrial labour have a lot to answer for in that regard. There is no call whatever for this legislation. . The Leader of the Opposition said he accepted the statement that the majority - of the farmers were already giving their employees a fortnight’s leave, and contended that no reasonable objection could be taken to bringing them all into line. He failed to see how the Bill could act adversely to the fanner.. Even if it was an attempt to organise the rural workers, was that a crime ? It was a good thing to be organised, and he himself had advised the farmers to become members of their qwn union. Mr W. H. Field (Othki) contended thatthere was no necessity to introduce legislation making it compulsory for the farmers to grant leavb when they already : did'so. The utmost good feeling pre- ’ .Vailed ,at the. present time between both parties, and it was a pity that the Bill was introduced, unless,. of course,“it was the expressed wish of a good many of

the workers. He. wasjnclined to think, however, that friction wou’d be stirred up, as he was certain the Bill would be resented by the farmers. It was a wise policy to let well alone.

Air T. D. Burnett (Temuka) advised the member in charge to drop the Bill. 'Me arc very jealous of the very fine spirit and relations that exist between our rural workers and our rural employers, and wc don’t want them upset. Me don t like this autocratic ‘you must’ in our country industries. M’e prefer to get round the table and arrive at some mutual arrangement.” Mr Burnett supported what other members bad said in connection with the leave already granted rural workers.

Air Sullivan said he was surprised that the Bill should be regarded as an attempt to organise the rural workers. He could assure members that it contained no ulterior motive, nor was it directed at the fanners.

The Alinister of Lands: 1 honestly believe tha’ it will injure the rural workers. Air Sullivan : I can't see it, and 1 hope the Government will give me an opportunity to go fully into the matter later by allowing the Bill to be introduced. Air Field: Has it been asked for by the farm labourers?

Air Sullivan: Air Fie’d speaks as thought the Bill is to apply only to farm labourers. It applies to all workers not covered by’ awards or agreements. The Bill was read a first time.