SHEARERS’ DISPUTE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16174, 10 July 1923, Page 8

SHEARERS’ DISPUTE.

NEW AWARD SOUGHT

WAGES, HOURS, AND CONDITIONS

Tho preliminary hearing of the shearers’ application for a new Dominion award took place in the -Arbitration Court, Wellington, before his Honor Mr. Justice Frazer and Mr. W. Scott, (employers’ assessor), and Mr. It. Hunter (representing tho employees). Mr. V. Graviidler, with him Mr. A. Cook, appeared for tho Shearers’ and Shod Hands, Experts and Crutchers’ Union, and (Messrs. W. H. Nicholson (Christchurch), W. U. Prime (Napier), and D. llebeiiton (Wairarapa) for the New Zealand Sheepowners’ and Farmers’ Federation.

It was announced that no evidence would be called for the union in Wellington, but that some would bo taken in other districts. After some discussion it was decided to treat tho demands purely as local disputes. THE UNION’S CLAIMS.

The union claimed a 44-hour week, to be worked in four two-hour shifts daily ; work to cease at 12 noon on Saturdays, whether the full week had been worked or not; and tho “smoko” bell to ring three minutes before time, in order that tho meal hours may not be encroached upon. The. rates for shearing by hand were put at not less than '£l 30s per hundred sheep, plug rations and shears, and those for shearing by- machine at not less than £1 10,s per hundred, with rations: with an increase of 5s per.hundred in the case of merinos. The rate claimed for lambs was, not less than £1 10s per hundred, with rations; and the rate for stud sheep and all ranis double ordinary rate. Other points not embodied in tho, existing agreement were that, a representative and a, committee of two should be elected by tho shearers for the settlement of disputes, and that shearers and shed hands should forward to tho employer their union ticket, which should bo accepted as a deposit. Regarding shed hands, tho union asked that pressers be paid at the rate of £5 10s per week, 2s 9d per Hour, or 2s 6d per bale; that all other hands receive either £4 per week or 2s 4d per hour; cooks for 12 men and under,-£5; from 12 to 20 men, £7, with one assistant; from 20 to 35 men, £9 10s, with two assistants; cooks’' assistants, £5 a, week. It wag further claimed that where rations were not provided tho worker should be allowed £1 10s per week, and that fares one way from tho nearest railway station to the place of employment should be paid by the employer to all shearers and shed hands. Fresh proposals were submitted also on behalf of shearing machine experts and crunchers. For engine drivers, £1 per day or £6 per week, in tho ease of four to eight stands was asked for, and £1 5s per day or £7 per week on sheds with more than eight stands; the employer to allow all fares (first-class) from place of engagement to shed, and expenses at the rateof 10s per day for time necessarily occupied in travelling. Rates of pay for crutchers were suggested at 9s per hundred and where engaged by the day, not less than £1 10s per day with rations.

Mr. Grayndler addressed the Court at considerable length in support of tire demands.

EMPLOYERS’ CASE,

Tho employers submitted tho provision of tho existing award as counterproposals. “In opening this case on behalf of the employers throughout tho Dominion,” said Mr. Nicholson, “there are a few points I should like to bring under the notice of the Court. Outside actual rates of pay, the main proposals by the workers’ represenetatives deal with matters which have already been fully dealt with by this Court after hearing voluminous evidence at tho three main centres two years ago, and the employers feel that they are being placed somewhat in tho position of a mail who has been charged with an offence and brought boforo the Court and certain evidence adduced which lias been dealt with by the Judge and a decision given. “The workers’ representatives now propose in effect to bring that man again boforo the Court, . I presume, on the same evidence and for the same reason, and I submit that, unless fresh reasons can be given for the action taken and the demands being made and that fresh additional evidence can bo brought in support of those demands, the result must bo a criminal waste of the Court’s time with that, of the sheepowners’ representatives, and is also in effect a rejection upon the intelligence of this Court. I ask your Honor for a ruling as to whether employers are to bo subjected to a continual recurrence of demands .which have been dealt with at a previous sitting of the Court, unless new conditions arise which warrant an application for the same.

“As regards rates of pay, the general contention by the employers is that the Court, having „ fixed the rates for the shearers and shed hands last year on a level which will ensure the shearer and other workers under this award receiving the same remuneration as those workers of a similar class under other awards, then there can, be no justification for the Court, increasing the rates outside that of any increased cost of living since the date of the last award. As Showing' the haphazard lino o. thought followed and the paradoxical nature of the demands made by the workers’ representatives, I would mention that while the shearers aro asking for a reduction in hours of work they are also at the same time stating that the "Court, lias fixed a weekly average tally for the shearer at. too high a figure. Now, if the Court has fixed the average tally at too high a level, viz., 450 sheep a week,, then on the-mverage daily tally of 120 sheep as submitted to, the Court in evidence by the shearers’ own witnesses, the shearer is only working on an average, of less than four days a week, .and even if we use as a basis the Court’s tally, wlich is alleged to be too high, this demand for shorter hours is already conceded. “At the same time the shearers are claiming a. higher rate of pay, so that it will readily be seep, one proposal defeats tbe objpds of:the other, as if the Court reduces its weekly average tally it must automatically still further reduce the hours worked, while if it increased the rates as asked with the tally as at present, then it will be apparent that the new rates would, he far too high, as under the existing rates the wage earned on the Court’s average weekly tally is on a par with rates under otehr awards. 'Dio Court having adjusted the rates under the last award in accordance with the movement in the cost of living down to September, 1922, and there being no appreciable difference in the cost of living since that date, the employers are of opinion that it would be unfair for the Court to use any other basis than that adopted last season in the interests of the workers and which resultod in sheopowners, in a great many cases, having to pay rates for shearing which they could not afford and which resulted in losses from which it. will take some time for them to recover oven should existing conditions

prevail. “It is submitted that the issue is a very simple one for the Court at, this stage,: it being only necessary to make adjustments in the existing award to moot alterations in costs of living for the worker, if any, sin co the last award was made, the remaining conditions being exactly similar to-day as obtained last. year. On behalf of the employers I submit, that there is no case to answer, and would respectfully ask for the Court’s decision on this point before proceeding.” His Honor said tlio question was rather difficult to answer offhand, 1 since Mr. Grayndler had submitted a system

of calculation different from that at pv& sent adopted by tho Court, and for that reason it, would be examined by the Court. Af, all events, ho award would he made in Wellington until, evidence* had been heard in the other districts." The union, if they so desired, could then apply for an award on a Dominion basis, while the employers had the right to call evidence in centres notdealt with.—Dominion.