ARBITRATION COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13637, 3 July 1908, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE SHEARERS' DISPUTE.

At the hearing of the demands of the Shearers' Union by the Arbitration Court at Christchurch on Wednesday, Frank Waddell, secretary to the Union submitted records for Canterbury for the last four ■ seasons as follows: Total- number of sheds 162; total number of men employed during the season, 1770;' sheep shorn, 2,220,904; gross average daily earnings, £69 5s 9d; gioss average daily earnings per man, 9s 1 3-sd. To his Honor: There were in Canterbury each season about 1300 shearers. There were 908 'unionists, and of" these three out of every four were "birds ot passage"' domiciled in Australia. To Air. Scott': He would not be surprised to learn that every yeai* in Canterbury "üboiit five million sheep were shorn. Of shearers who' gave evidence regarding • their earnings, one said, he netted £2 6s 4d, a week for 13 weeks; another -SI 9s 4d, £1 8s 4d, £2 5s 7d, £2 5s 9d a week in different years; another £3, 0s 9d a week. Mr Scott, owners' representative, submitted that shearers' should be classed half-way betw-ean ekilled and unskilled labour, and as such should eceive: from 9s to 9s 6d a day. How was it, however, that all the men were tallying from 100 to 150 per day and making from 16s 8d to 17s per day, or three times as much as the wage of an unskilled man? It was because the price had been fixed very r high to meet the drawbacks that they had been complaining of before the Court. "Without those drawbacks they would be entitled to only 7s a day and found. The cost of living had increased, but -tlm had fallen on the sheepfarmers, to whom the cost of providing for the men had increased largely ever'since 1902. Speaking of the alleged failures' of' the Arbitration.Act, Mr. Scott said he notic-'' ed that, although the unions were most lould .'in its "condemnation none of ithem wanted to go back on it as far as the conditions were concerned. They wanted to hold on for those conditions, and go out on strike for an increase of wages. But he warned them that they could not hold on tojroth, andl he said that if the I Act went to the wall it would. be by the action of the workers, who had really far more to gain by sticking to it than had the employers. Take the case of i the slaughtermen's strike. They had , held a pistol at the head of the companies and said "We want 25s instead of'2os." They knew that if they had said 35s the employers would have had to pay it. They should remember, however, that when bud times came, and %vo men were applying for one man's billet, the employers, could turn round and say, '• Jfow we will retaliate and-fix the price at 12s 6d." The men would have to accept it, for N -they would know that they could not go elsewhere and ■ get more. Now, however, the Arbitration Court stepped-in and said " We will fix a fair and reasonable rat-e, namely, 205." That he held waTF to the advantage of the worker. That was the state of things that" the workers\were talking of knocking on the head. If they smashed the Act it would not be the

employers that would get hurt most He •admitted certain benefited: the employer,, for it had enabled him-to know exactly where' he stood,;b'uf the:.-Act wis-all- m favour" of the worker. ...Lthad put up the cost on the/employer,- but he was not going to; go back on.,the, Act.