Farm Labourers.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13644, 11 July 1908, Page 3 (Supplement)

Farm Labourers.

ARGUMENT IN ARBITRATION COURT.

The farm labourers' dispute came before the Arbitration Court for ; healing on Monday. Mr Justice Sim presided, wuli Mr S. Brown and Mr J. A. MuGullougL. Tlie farmers were represented by Messrs D. Jones, and R. Evans, the Slieepownens' Union by H. D.. Acland, and the. Farm Labourers' Union by Messrs J. lliorn and E. Kennedy. ... In opening the proceedings, His Honour; said, in view of the desire of- ot liens than those who > had: been witnesses, before the Conciliation Board to give evidence, that any farmer' having fresh facts to- bring forward would communicate with Mr Jones, and applications uiude by him in respect of 1 would be dealt with . a| they were made. . ' In opening the case for the Union, -Mr Thorn said he did not intend to call any further evidence, '.and mentioned that. ; lie considered most of that called by the dtheiside had been repetition of that given in the fortnight. He had been asked by tbe-'.Cdnrt to.-.-pijove the: ofifan awjefdy.' though* m,; might /lijLve been stated that the lonus of -proving! 1 its lm- : practicability lay on the employees. Various difficulties had been alleged. FirsVwas the difficulty that the fixing of a minimum wage was interfered with by tliei giving of perquisites. but what the Union wanted was a- minimum amount of perquisites and; 111 addition, ;t fixed minimum in wages, Mow which the em-, ployer could not engage / men. The question of perquisites had not been founu an insurmountable difficulty elsewhere. The second question w;'s the alleged- mixiiig of the interests of employers and employees. But the majority of farmers who worked for dither farmers were not employers themselves, and they should, and generally did, get the minimum wage. Those- who merely exchanged their labour* with others, as at harvest time, according to the. Board's ir.ectimmendatiou, to'which the Union took no objection, could be outside,the operation of .the award. In

regard to the obstacle of fixed hours. His Honour had suggested that the' hours of work could be fixed on a, fortnightly or a monthly basis. That, however, would involve the possibility of men working sixteen hours a day- and having completely idle - days in- the week, arid' the Union preferred, on that account, to have ilie hours fixed\ by the- day. Mr Thorn laid stress on the fact that when the weather, was wet the work always available ■ for

•the men was indirectly, if not directly, profitable to the farmer', for, if it was not necessary to the .working of the farm, the employers would not pay wages for it. That the award was practicable was. obvious from (lie evidence of some of the witnesses. Mr J. Rennie, for instance, had said that-, owing tto the comparatively large crops obtained in New Zealand for a. given amount of labour, and the dependable climate, an award would be practicable. /As far as : the pastoralists, were concerned, the Court had already considered their case in Otago. It; could have then made ail award for shepherds, and have made an award for nnisterers. • If any proof was required tliat the pastoralists could come /under an. award .it was found in the declaration of a large number of employers that if an award was made they would drop grain and go in for sheep. Tliat showed that they considered the sheep < man could work best under an. award. The sheepfariner, was, however, the one excluded by the Board's recommendations, in spite of the Court's decision in Otago. Mr Thorn then proceeded to criticise. j minority report of the employers' : representaives, stating' that no. amendment of wages should be made for different sorts of land, and it was unjust to set . off overtime against holidays. He then dealt-with the Board's report in detail, 'and pointed out certain directions in whioli'the workers considered it could be advantageously amended.' Mr Tliorri sdid -tliat : tlie Union considered that - the day labourers' wage of 6s 6d recommended by the Board should lave been 7s 6d a ;. the recommended wage was considered too" lo>v by; many farmers. It was prepared to accept the twelve holidays by. the Board. Touching upon the question of dairy farming, Mr Thorn quoted evidence to show that a nine-hours day was quite .practicable. The employment of married couples Svas not free from abuses, and a regulation of the rules governing it was urgently required. If a man and a woman, earning together £lO5 a year and Jound, married* they were liable as a married couple I to receive £BO to £BS a year. That had happened many years ago, and might, happen again. The Union had been ; uiiable to call evidence on : that; point, because the witnesses were "often unable or , unwilling to run the risk of appearing. That, indeed, had been a difficulty all through the proceedings. The- Union desired, in regard to married couples, tliat the man should receive ab least as much married as single, and that ; the y-woman "should also receive fair payment ifor her work. If -the couple could-not be employed " advantageously, the Union ' did. not demand their employment. He -quoted evidence to indicate what was a fair wage for, a capable married' couple, v It the wife cooked for five, they .were worth fat) least £IOO a year. If they had cliildi ren, they must make; their own arrangements. No recommendation had been made _by..,the Board as to threshing, but :the ' minority report proposed tliat the ; provisions for the • Waimate" Workers" Union should apply. If the-proposal was accepted, the Canterbuiy Union aSked that as far as threshing'hands were concerned " the award should be made to apply only up to the ;expirv of-the Waimate'award. The Waimate Union had - expressed - jits intention to amalgamate with the Canterbury Union, as soon as the award expired. The Board's report said nothing about contract work, but the Union'was prepared to agree with the recommendation, of the minority report. He asked whether the Court could ■■■prevent., subcontracting. ' A : ;; His Honour said .that-the Court -wo\(ld

have jurisdiction over contract and piecework only, where there existed the relationship of master and servant. If there was a bona fide contract, the .Court would have no jurisdiction. .

In concluding his addrois, Mr Thorn said that lie desired, to bring under the notice of the Court the unconstitutional manner in which , the case had been conducted bv the other side. " They had tried in every poss.ble/way to influence the minds of those, adjudicating on the proceedings. Time after time the chairman of the Board had been practically inundated with letters and communications of all kinds. Meetings had been held iu all parts of Canterbury, and the papers had been full of reports and articles such as had appeared, for instance, in Saturday's " LvtteUon. Times." Ac cording to that, paper, a farmer had, said that the Board's recommendations would mean that a ploughman would-do nothing but plough.

His Honour: " But we don't want, to take any notice of what, is in the papers at all." ,

Mr- Thorn: " Wry well, your Honour: I thought it would be as-well to ...raw attention to the matter. < serves to show the misapprehension that, 'exists among -farmers as to the results of n award." It. had been , said, he wen*> on, that there was a . widespread and wellfounded opposition to the demands of the Union. Had such opposition existed, lie did not think' the Union would have been able to support, out of the mouths of the farmers" witnesses, every one of .its contentions. The farming industry was greatly in need of. improvement from the workers', point of view, and the'men were constantly leaving .ii for other businesses. An award raising the status of the farm workers and placing, their work on a better basis would 1>» a great benefit to' the workpis and the employers alike. The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. next day, when Mr Acland was to address it on behalf of the employers.