FARM LABOURERS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13681, 25 August 1908, Page 6

FARM LABOURERS.

ARBITRATION COURT'S FULL JUDGMENT.

In view of its importance and general interest, we print below the full text of the Arbitration Court's judgment in the farm labourers' dispute, a bare summary of which appeared on Saturday:

This is an industrial dispute between the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers' Union and the Canterbury Sheepowners' Industrial Union of Employera and about 7000 farmers carrying on business in the Canterbury industrial district. The dispute was referred to the Conciliation Board for settlement on November 16, 1906, and on the same day was referred by the Union to this CourtWhen the case cam 9 before the Court in August, 1907, Mr Jones, who appeared as the representative of a large number of farmers, claimed that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The objection was overruled, and an order was made, under Section 85 of the Act, referring the dispute to the Conciliation Board tor investigation and report. The Conciliation Board proceeded to investigate the dispute, and, for this purpose, heard the evidence of a large number of witnesses in different parts of the industrial district. The report of the Board was presented to the Court in July, 1908. The dissenting reports which accompany it make it clear that, on many points, this report expresses only the views of the chairman. The workers' representatives concurred in it pro forma, for the sake of having a report by the Board, and they express iu a separate report their own views as to the terms which would constitute a fair and reasonable settlement of tlie dispute. The employers' representatives, on the other hand, think that it is not desirable to make any award, and that, existing conditions should be allowed to continue. The following are the demands put forward by the Union: Schedule of Wages and Conditions.— Hours of labour—(l) Ploughmen, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., with the following time off for mrals —Breakfast 7 to 7.30 a.m., at which time they will leave stables or camp; one hour and a half for dinner, the time to be taken from leaving work until leaving etablea , to return to work. A ploughman to leave off working his horses at 5 p.m. No other work shall be" done except to unharness and feed' his horses and otherwise attend to them after 5 p.m., but he shall not- be compelled to groom his horses after that hour. Day labouieis, e.c., tiglit and a half hours for the first five days of the week, and four and a half homs on Saturday. (5) General farm hands —The hours of labour shall be nin-r per day. (4) Harverters' hours shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with one hour for dinner and a half-hour for lunch, both before and after dinner. (5) Married couples—When the husband is working horses, his hours shall b..- tlie> same as ploughmen; if required to do harvest work, then the hours will be those of a harvester; all other classes of work at the rate of forty-eight hours per week. Hates of wages—The following shall be the minimum rate of wages for all classes of work:—(6) Head ploughman or timekeeper, £1 10s per week; ploughmen on

level country", not less than £1 7s 6d per week for four-horse team arid. £1 5s for three-horse team, .and 2s 6d per week for every horse over four; swamp ploughing with six horses, £1 15s per. week, with 2s 6d extra for each horee over six. General farm hand £1 7s 6d! per week with board and lodgings. Day labourers, 7s 6d' per day. Casual labourers, Is per hour. Drainers shall be paid Is per hour, and', if working in- water, Is 3d per hour (gum-boots to be supplied by employers). Harvest wages—All men working horses during harvest ,- : time on a farm or station shall be paid £2 15s per week with board and lodgings; stooking and forking in paddock, £2 15s per week, or bv the hour Is 3d- with board and lodging; stacking, £3. per week, or Is 6d per hour, with board and lodging ; stacker's assistant, Is per hour with board and lodging; day men. Is per hour with board at the rate of 10s per week where necessarv. Married coupies (if both are j required to work) shall be paid as fol- j lows:—Man, £1 7s 6d per week; wife, if cook, 15s per week for four men, and 2s per week extra for each person over four, and' if required to" bake, £1 per week. Married couples shall receive free of rent or other charges a house, coal or firewood, and shall be allowed to keep a horse and trap on terms to ba arranged, which shall not exceed Is per week. Scale of rations to be arranged between employer and employee. If hueband is required: to harvest, then his wages will be those of a harvester. Shepherds.—Head shepherds on plains or downs country (if married) £1 12s 6d per week; head shepherd: back or mountainous country (if married) £1 15s 6d per week; house, fuel, rations, horses and feed for dogs to be free of rent or other charges. Any other necessaries as per agreement. Head shepherds, 'single, tie same as above, with board and lodging in lieu of house, etc. Under shepherds, single, £1 l?s 6d per week, with board and lodging; if married, ,£1 12s 6d per week, and other conditions same as head shepherds. Casual shepherds during mustering, lambing, shearing, etc., ±!1 15s per week, with board and lodging, feed for dogs and horses ..free of charge; mustering on Sundays, Is p£r hour. Aiusterers and packers in' back or mountainous country shall be paid •£3 per week of six days, and 10s for Sundays, also feed for horses, dogs, etc., "with board and lodging. Day musterers, lis per. day; employers to allow one day's pay lor travelling from last place of employment and 5s for expenses. (7) Threshers. —The wages, houis, and conditions of harvesters shall apply to one working a threshing plant. Holidays.— (8) The following holidays shall be observed: — New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, day of ". local .sports,.. Labour Day, birthday .of ruling Sovereign, Christmas Day, jioxing iJu\ , one we-:k each in November and l\lay, alt at full pay and haif-holiday on Saturday (except during harvest time. Overtime.— (9) Day labourers, Is per hour; harvesters Is 3d per hour,, for all work worked before t a.m. or after ? p.m.. (10) Hoys to be paid with an increase of 2a 6d per week every six months until they receive the full- wages. No 'boy under sixteen years of age to be allowed to take charge of or work a team of more than two horses. Boys not to bs allowed to do work before or after the time allowed for other farm workers. Accommodation.—(ll). All sleeping accommodation must be properly ventilated and kept in a sam'iury condition, and each individual ehall have the same air space as now allotted under the Shearers Act, 1898. The dining-room ehall be a separate room from the Sleeping apartment. Each worker ehall be allowed board, soap, candles, or lamp;' men to have the choice of bakens' bread when practicable. Where men have to cook their own food they ehall be allowed 5a per week extra. (12) Preference of em-ployment-to be given- to members of this Union. (13) No work covered by these conditions shall be let by contract. The report of the Board contains a* recommendation with regard ;fo the hours of work and wages of most of . the workers referred to in these demands, but excludes from the operation of the, recommendation the hours of work and wages of workers engaged in milking and attending cows, 'ihe reports also show that a majority of .the Beard thought it was not desirable to make any award in connection with the dispute go far as it related to- shepherds, musterers and packers. These reports were considered, and the whole case was fully discueeed by the representatives of the parties before this particular Court in Christchurch on July 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 15 last. It is clear that the Court has a discretion as to whether it will, or will not, make an award in any particular case. The existence of an industrial dispute jives jurisdiction to make an award, and that jurisdiction is exercised in most cases, 3ut. -the Court is not bound to make any award in every case that is brought before it. In ttie present case the Court 3 asked to bring -under the operation of an award all employers engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits, in the mlustrial district of Canterbury. If such in "award is made the Court could nob -easonably refuse to make similar awards in other districts, and what the Court has really to decide oh the present application ■s whether it is necessary ; that the whole arming industry of the Dominion should ■uoq at]'), japan aq :ilimiou and Arbitration Acts. The Union usks that the hours of work, wages and reneral conditions of work of practically ill the workers employed by those engaged in the industry shall be regulated by in award. Now, it is obvious that an tward dealing with these matters, and ap)lying, as it would do, to thousands of mployens scattered ail over the district, md employers, too, who resent very much he attempted interference with their busiie;s, would be difficult of/enforcement, :nd that nothing less than a small army if inspectors would be required to enforce fiectually the provisions of such an .ward.

In view of this fact, of the magnitude also the interests involved, both directly and indirectly, in this dispute*, and of the serious results to not only the farming industry, but, indirectly, to the prosperity of the whole Dominion that might follow from the exercise of its power of regulation, the Court should not interfere unless the necessity for doing eo has been clearly made- out, and should net attempt to "make regulations for the Bake, merely of regulating. Before such interference' is justified it must be clear that there are substantial grievances or abuses which can be redrelssed effectually by the Court, and that the benefits to be obtained by its interference with more than compensate for any mischief that may result from such interference. What, then, are the grievances or abuses that are • relied on to justify the interference of the Court in the present case? The demands of the Union were framed in 1906, when the Union comprised about 400 out of the whole bodv of agricultural and pastoral workers in this indnsSrial district, who number, it. .is estimated, about 16,000 persons. The Union had been established some years before, and we have in Mr. Kennedy's evidence a statement of the reasons which led to the formation of the Union. Tt wns the wretched conditions under which he had eeen boys and men working that: induced him, he said, to eet about, the establishment of a Union. He gave, in his evidence, the caees of two boys to illustrate what he had seen. " One boy where I was working," he said,- " had to get up in the morning at the eame time as I did, 5.30. He had to feed the pigs and milk cows, and then come back and attend to tbreg young horses he was working, feed them, and go out to work. He worked in the paddock—in the eame paddock I was working in. He generally did harrowing, and followed that teapv ail day until five o'clock; it was half-past

five in ithe place I worked that we men knocked off our work practically, excepti attending to our horses. This boy also had to attend to his-horses and then turn about and feed pigs and milk the cow and, if necessary, tn run messages to Methven, which was four miles away." He gives 'the case also of another boy who did practically the same work ae~ that just described, beginning at 5.30 in the morning and nob finishing sometimes until seven o'clock at- night. The lad was going, Mr. Kennedy said, the whole time, and never got a moment to himself. The wage paid to these are less than ,10-s par week. These cases are certainly bad enough, but there is nothing to suggest that cases . of. this kind are common, or other than rare. The evidence it is true, disclosed one or two instances of swealting. The worst of thtee was, perhaps, the case supplied by Mr. George Sid<6, a farmer at Morven, who had been engaged in farming for twentytwo years. This gentleman, who himself had started in New Zealand as a farm worker at, l£s per week, thought that milking cows was not work. "He considered, it," he said, " a grand rest after working the horses all day to sit down on the stool and milk. Making was certainly nob work." According to his evidence he milked twenty-one cows, and employed two men at the work. One of the " men " was a little boy fresh from 6chool, who received board and clothes in return for his services. The other worker was a man who received 10s per week for thirteen hours of work per day. He started' at 6 a.m. and finished about 7 p.m. In addition to milking cows, he fed calves, chopped wood, trimmed fences, ' followed the drill, and did other things in the middle of ithe day. The man came to Mr. Sides last winter. "He was stuck, and I took . him in," said, Mr. Sides. It was not- suggested by the Union representatives that this was a typical case, or that cases like this are other than rare.

The other grievance which Mr. Kennedy desired to see redressed by the formation of a Union was the bad ac-

commodation provided for farm workers. This, according to Mr. Kennedy's evidence, was certainly bad in many eases. As, however, the subject has since been dealt with by the Legislature in the Agricultural Labourers' Accommodation Act, 1907, it .is unnecessary to consider it in connection with the present dispute. . These then were the grievances which induced' Mr Kennedy to set about the formation of a Union. •

What were the further facts relied on at the hearing to justify the interference of the Court?

The demands of the Union with regard to wages involve an increase in the wages paid to thousands of the workers now employed by farmers; Evidence was called on behalf of the Union to prove that there was considerable dissatisfaction on the part of \ many workers with the wages now paid to them. Ther/s was, however, nothing in the evidence to show that this dissatisfaction existed to any exent before the demands of the Unioii were formulated in 1906, and the dissatisfaction now proved to exist does not appear to amount to more than this, that a large number of workers-would like to . have their wages increased. That is, doubtless, a perfectly natural and laudable desire on their part, but the existence of such a desire is not of itself a sufficient ground l for the interference of the Court.

The evidence shows that a large proportion of farm workers, one estimate was 90 per cent.," live with their employers, and are provided by them with board and lodging. The question of a living wage, therefore, does not arise in connection with this class of workers. It only arises in connection with day labourers, with whose case we shall deal hereafter. The evidence called 1 on behalf of the' employers established that in the past many farm labourers had saved! enough money out of their earnings to enable them to start farming on their own account. The figures given in the "New Zealand Oftieyial Year Book" show that the wages paid to farmers in Canterbury were 16s per week in 1894, and that in 1906 .they ranged from 20s to 22s 6d per week. 'lf- is clear that the wages of farm labourers,i-,hare; increased during these years without, any outside interference, and it cannot be said that while the position of workers has been improved that of farm labourers has remained' stationary. .It is clear, also, from the evidence that the wages paid to farm labourers in New Zealand are better than those paid' to the same workers in any part of Australia.

It was said that dissatisfaction existed in some cases with the food and accommodation proyided by employers. The subject .of accommodation, as already pointed out, has been dealt with by the Legislature. With regard to the complaints about, food, it' was not suggested that the instances which were referred to were other than isolated ' cases, or that farmers generally did not feed their workers properly. - It appears to us, therefore, that, dealing with farm labourers generally, the Union has failed to .prove the existence of any substantial grievance or abuse that .would justify the interference of the Court with the whole fanning industry of ■Canterbury. Assuming, however, for the sake of argument, that a case has been made out lor the interference- of the Court, and that it is desirable to bring the fanning industry under the operation of an award, we proceed now to deal with the question of whether it is possible to make a workable award on the subject. By a workable award -we mean an award which would fix fair, and reasonable conditions with regard to hours of work, and wages, and, at the same time, would not hamper nor restrict, without any compensating advantage, the operations of farmers. . -

In dealing with this question, we propose to -leave out of consideration in the meantime the case of shepherds, musterers and packers, and to consider the' case of the other workers included in the;' Union's demands.; The most Important of these are—(l) ploughmen; (2) general f arnoTiands; (3) harveijuyhands; (4) day'labourers. There on which men are employed as ploughmen 'only, and are kept working at team work all the time, but these cases appear to 'he rare. The general rule appears to he for ploughmen to do other \rori; as well, and' Mr Thorn 'included ploughmen in his classification ' of general farm hands. He divided the general : farm' hands into the four following classes:—(a) The worker who is an ordinary rouseabout, and who does odd jobs on a farm . or station,' and has little or no attendance to animals, (b). The worker who is a rouseabout'end leamster. (c) Tlie worker who doaj ploughing and odd jobs, and milks a fair cdws. . (d) The worker who attends to stock of all description?, The Union asked the Court to .fix the hours of lahoyr for general. farm hands at- nine hours per. day, -and the Board lias recommended that- the hours, of work for .general farm hands shall not exceed eight in' any one -.3 ay, and that ploughmen shall not work more ' than eight hours in tight chains. •As already pointed l out, a very large proportion of farm. workers live with their employers, and are members of their domestic circle. This fact aloes makes it very undesirable that this hard and fast rule should be mads with regard to the daily houre of such workers. When .a worker is living on his employer's . preJPt?es> it >s difficult to say when his work begins and when it ends, and any regula- ! tion as to. hours ta he effectual would | necessitate the keeping hy each employer of record in a time-hook of the hours | worked . by each of his servants. It to ys .quite out of ■ the question to apply, as the Union seeks to do, the methods of »■ fairtojj;, to •s»* operations

'of a farm. The operations of a farm are carried on subject to the restrictions imposed by weather, but it happens that time lost by bad weather at one period may have to be made up, as. far as possibly, .by working longer hours at another period, and that emergencies arise which make it necessary for farm workers to work at times without any regard to hours.

Any limitation of daily or weekly h«?ure would preven'. this being done. except at an increased cost by payments for overtime Some of the witnesses who had kept exact records gave instances of the fm* that hud been lost through weather- Thus. on- witness saUl that four years ago his horses did not turn „ i,„U for two months U.rough «et wither; another witness said th.it ■UI<«t. in connection with ploughing *ixtv davs in the year 1905, and thir.y d ? w in "the year lOP; another witness til thirtv one as the total number of daTs his teams, owing to wet weathe., wre able to work in four months >n the spring «E 1905; another witness eaid that in four months of the spung o iStt there were «h,ch the ground was wet thai the team* owld not «„vk it, and that d'.r.ng p [ -ri"d of ttin- month* m the same v_ethere weve thirty-three days on -which to. went her wa* so web Unit the teams ~«!d not go out at all. Ibe Ttitne" raid that in three months of IJUb th# re were fifty-two days on which the ground was so wet thai the teams could not work it. Other witnesses game similar experiences. and from -all this evidence it is clear that any attempt to impose on ploughing operations the restrictions as to hours asked for by the .Union would hamper and - of these operations; "and the same übservation holds, good: with regard to other farunng operations. The difficulty of fixing definite hours Fur work is increased iu cases where part «f the work on a, farm consists in milking cows. In these cases it is impracticable to have tlie "work done within any continuous period ol niue hours, for the reason that cows ought tt> be milked every twelve hours. 'the difficulty of regulation oa this subject is recognised in tlw report of thy Conciliation board, which recommends that the houi6 and wages rd workers engaged in milking or a tendrng to cows shall be fixed by mutual agreement.

''o get over the difficulty a suggestion "was made by the Union that a worker engaged in milking cons should work for four or five hours in the uiorning and again for four or live hours at n'ght. of the witnesses thought that it might be practicable to work iu this way, hut. it did not appear that any farmer had ev«r tried the system as an experiment. It would be out of 'the question for the Court to force upon dairy-farmers a method of working which had not been tried anywhere even as an experiment. According to the "Official Year Book" there were 54,000 cows and heifers kept in the Can'erbury Provincial District for dairying purposes in 1906-07. One witness said that most of the farmeis milk vnly six or eight cows, and, if this is so, it follows that ?. large proportion of «11 the farmers in the industrial district mast . ..be engaged in dairying. Any award; therefore, which excluded from its uperation, as recommended by the Board, ail workers engaged in milking or attending to cows should leave only a very small proportion of the total workers to be affected by the award.. The difficulty of fixing hours in the case of workers engaged in dairying becomes f. practical impossibility in the case of workers employed in looking after shfcep. This impossibility was admitted by the Union's" witnesses, and yet. the Court is asked to fix the daily hours of farm labourers, many of whom , must have to work among sheep at different periods of the year.

It appears to us, therefore, to be quite impracticable to fix any definite hours for the daily work of .1 general farm band without altering materially the system which farming is carried on at the present time. We leave now the question of hours, and proceed ,to deal with the question of fixing minimum wage for general farm hands. We have referred , already to Air Thorn's enumeration of the d'i-V'pnb kinds of workers who are included in the class of general farm hands. It. was not suggested that the Court should attempt. to fix a minimum wage for each of tli<? four classes mentioned by Mr Thorn, and ib is difficult to s-»e how | it is possible to fix one minimum wage for different classes of workers whose work, in many respects, in so different. In the Board s report it. is recommended that the wages of ploughmen and general farm hands should be fixed at 24s per week. with additions in the case of ploughmen working more than four horses, or engaged in swamp ploughing. On this point, the report, expresses the view of the chairman only, because the workers' representatives, think the minimum ehould be 27s 6d per week. In his address before the Court Mr Thorn gave the "result of a. very careful examination of the evidence as to the wage-: paid in the cases as t» which information had Iv>«n obtained during the hearing before the Board. This analysis showed that in severity-six cases the wages ranged from 20s "up to 30s per week. In fifteen casea 20s per. week was paid, in twenty

cases 22s 6d per week. Olid ih twentyejght cases 2-5s per iveek was pnid. Mr Thorn nil this evidence asked the Court t» fix the minimum at 25s or 27s M per week. We are not satisfied that it is practicable to fix what uould be a fair minimum wtigt* For a geneial farm hand. If the minimum were fixed low. at, for ♦■Xampl*', 20s "er week, the result might be to bring down the wages of those who are receiving higliEr wages, and this is certainly not a desirable result. If. on the other hand the minimum were fixed at 25s or 27s 6d per week, the result would be to throw a considerable burden oc tlie farming industry and increase by many thousand's of pounds the cost of farming, if it is t» be carried on in the future as it has been carried 011 iu the past-. The effect of any such increase ill wages would lie to the employment of labour and to induce farmers to avoid grain-growing and oilier operations that involve the employment of labour. Mr Thorn contended that the work of

a, general farm hand ought to be taken as worth, say, 27s 6d per week, ami! thatthat sum ought, to be fixed as the minimum wage to be paid to every competent farm labourer. But there is nothing iu the evidence t" establish that the services of the farm labourer to whom, say, 20s is paid, are worth <its much as the services of Ihe worker to whom 30s' is** paid. The services rendered in each case may be so different in worth thaal the wage in each case may be perfectly fair when measured by exactly the same standard. The fact that one farm labourer is paid 30s per week does not prove that another farm labourer who receives only 20s per week is underpaid, and there is nothing in the evidence to justify the Court in fixing a. minimum wage at 25s or 27s 6d in preference to 20s or 22s 6d per week. A serious objection to fixing a minimum wage for the general farm hand arises from the fact that there are a. large number of workers who find work on farms, but who are not worth the wage paid to the ordinary competent farm hand. Jjuch workers would 1)6 thrown out of employment, or would have to obta'n permits to work at less than the minimum, wage. The report of ihe Board contains* provision for an agreement being made provisionally iu these cases between the employer and the worker, and' for the review of (he agreement by the. chairman of the Conciliation Board- lb was estimated that from 3000 to 4000 cases wouid have to be dealt with ' und'er this provision, and it seems quite impracticable to have such a large number of cases, arising in ' different pails of the industrial district, dealt with by the chairman of the Conciliation Board. During the hearing of the case before the' Court it was suggested that the parties might; he: left to make an agreement on: llie subject, with a provision for giving notice to the Inspector of Awards, and giving tiie Union a right to have any agreements to which it objected viewed belore the nearest Stipendiary Magistrate. This scheme would have avoided some of the difficulties prevented by the other method, and it might be possible to devise a workable scheme on the subject. But it is certainly an objection to fixing a minimum wage that, if any reasonable sum lis fixed, it would mean that some thousands of workers would have to lie allowed to work at less than such mini-., mum, or be thrown out of employment. It has not been proved that these men are being sweated. They are provided with food and shelter, and "if the ' peiv cuniaiy wage is small ib may via case that they are not- worth more .to the farmer, and they might- have difficulty iu earning a living at any other' work

The conclusion Jwjj- Jjave -«>m& to on the whole matter is that "it is not practicable to make an award fixingstlie hours of work and wages for general farm hands without altering seriously the conditions under which farming is now carried on. If a strong case had been made oub for interference the Court might have f 'fe compelled to make an award on the subject, and to attempt 'o regulate the hours of work and wagv.-s of general farm hiin'lsTSnrli a, case, however, had not been niad&. out, antl the Court is thus relieved fro.n the necessity of making the .perilous at-tempt-to regiilajfc- by . award the wholefarming industry itf- jthe -Dominion. The consideration iof of the day labourer was postponed, and wo now proceed to deal with that subject. The evidence shows that a large number of farmers pay their day labourers 7s per day and upwards, while • others only pay 6s per day. and Bome as low as 5s per day. We think that anything les3 than 7s per day is not a living wage where the worker has to maintain a wife and children, and that, so far as the day labourer is concerned, a cass has been made out for tlip interference of the Court. In ordinary circumstances the Court would riV:e an award dealing with this case. The day labourers form, however, only a. small fraction of the workers employed by f~rmeri and we are not justified in bringing 7000 or 0000 farmers under '.he cpeia-

tion of an award for the sake of benefitting a small number of day labourers who are paid less than 7s per day. As wi.l be been Weaker, a l-ecommendu.tion is made r.n tlia subject, and the farmers will, 110 doubt, 162 the wisdom of giving efiecfc to this rccomujaidtttwu. •» So far as fislUg liOlii'S of work and wages use concerned, thete would have been no difficulty iii niakirig dn award with regard to Wjikei-5 V.ilb die smfiKVed especially t-i> do harvest work; but- there 6=«lHed to lie no necessity for the interference of the C'fcmft iil tile ltlattfir. Iheevidence sll-nvs that- dtli-lfig hardest the hotite of work range fronl ten to twelve per day, and that general harvest hands employed bv the< hour are JJald* as a* rule, la pel- hour dtld fotiiid, -liliile stickers are Ha id front Is 3d, to Is 6d per hour and found; <Uld -that illieii workers are engaged Hy the. itgek fot- ihfi work, the Wiigo moist generally ptlid was 60s pel* week and found. .■ . . , General faim hands are also employed I'J do liatvesting ti-orfe, rind at© jiaid a bonus in addition to their ordinary weekly wng'.B. This bonus does not .eeein lo tie fixed on .'Uiy s£tti£d ]pr)iiti{ile; &hu ihe L'uUli. Lite tllade a. TecclnniendatioH (in this subject', to which farmers will doubtless give> dtre consideration. We" propose to de&l liort' with- the subjett Of Jlejilields, ifiiiSUH-f-s and i'acfe«rH. Ihe Court made an awatd this year in the Chago ;liid Southland distHct. dealing frith mteterers, atid tc hive not beeii convinced that there is atiy fSMsoB wh# A similar award should not be made with regard to miisterers arid jiackers in the Canterbury dis'U-ieU iV& t)k>tiosS; tlierfitb make an award betitetn the Union and the Sheep-owners' Union fixing the minimum , wages of mustereis at the rate fixed by the Otago rind Southland aw a i-d, n!ld Hiihg thus© of tu® jJackei's snipluyed in connection with mu&tering at. 39s pet weekThe award will U'ob Olilr fijiMy to ftofkers who al - e fcsgagSd fcpfecitiealfy as Iniisietei's packers. Any regular farm or station hand who assists in mustering, or who is employed in t>acbitlg, trill not come within tlte ecbite tnS VTe hivg hoi been satisfied that, there is altV tteoessifev to iiiake an award dealing with the "subject of shepiieids' wages; Or that i hee workefls desire 'tiiS Interference of the Court itt tills iiialleh f?liejiherdn are engaged Usually at A yearly salary and are provided with lioat'd rtlid lodging, .aha iii some cases have pri W■leg*6 Jh" addition; Tiie salaries paid -range fi-flhi £65 t» £iW Jifct- ;innliiii. this lastfllelltißnSd slim being 'the salary paid to the head shepherd on one station. The question of ;t living wage, therefore, does not arise in tlie case of sheplrelds. The Union called as witnesses lit connection ifbft demands as to shepherds several workers who had been employed as shepherds, but of these only (two were actually employed as shepherds at the date when they gaVe evidence before the Board. Mr Kennedy said that a large number of shepherds had joined the Union, but he could not give any definite information as to the number of shepherds who are now members of the Union. Whatever that number may be, it is certain that the demands of the Union with regard to shepherds did not originate in any general dissatisfaction on the part of shepherds with their condition, or in any general disire on tlieir part to have their . wages increased. We have decided, therefore, to leave the Mages and other conditions of shepherds to be settled, as heretofore, by agreement between the parties. The following are the recommendations which the Court makes to all farmers in the industrial district:

(1) That all day labourers who receive only a money -payment- for their services shall be paid' not leas than 7s per day. (2) That when general farm hands are employed at harvesting the bonus to be paid to them shall be such a sum as will make their wages, for the time they are actually engaged in ' harvest work, not lea* than 5Cs per week. (3) That whenever it is reasonably practicable each farm worker shall be allowed a half-holiday on one day of the week, if he desires it. (4) That each regular farm ..porker "shall be allowed at. least one week's holiday in tho year on full pay. (5) That when general farm hands have to milk cows twice a. day they shall ba allowed an interval for rest during the day, in addition to the ordinary, dinner hour, except, of course, at the busy seasons of the year. Mr McCullough does not concur iu this judgment. Ho is strongly of opinion that grounds exist which justify and render necessary tho interference of the Court, and 'that it is .possible to make a workable award on the subject. ;

HOW WORKERS VIEW THE JUDGMENT. . "HERALD" REPORTER'S ENQUIRIES. In the course of his peregrinations yesterday a " Herald" reporter picked up 6ome workers' opinions concerning the -Arbitration Court's decision in the farm labourers' case. • It was ascertained that, there is deep-rorted discontent, at-, the finding- of the Court that there was 110 necessity to interfere with the farming conditions at present, prevailing., Several of those spoken to predicted that Mr Justice!3im would be " hauled over the coals" and that Parliament woidd be looked to for aid, for they were strongly of opinion that the labourers on many .farms (though not- by any means on all farms) required their hours of labour and rates of pay ■ defining, and for this reason it was ridiculous of the Judge to cay that they did . not require an award. But .while feeling - disappointed at no award being made (except for musterers and packmen) they felt confident that, the publishing of the volumes .of evidence, taken before the 'God-. vitiation Board would have a beneficial effect* inasmuch as many landowners would be. led by what was said by ithe labourers' representatives to pay their em- . ploy'ees higher wages, and above all to provide them .with better quarters. One horny-handed son of toil told the fepoi'ter that, in his opinion, the employment of Mr Thorn to conduct the dispute for the'farm labourers had done the Union as much liarm as good; Mr Thorn had at times allowed his tongue to move too freely, and ie lacked 'tact and discretion, with the result that they fa rmei's had " got their backs'tip," and had fought , the case with much greater vigour than they would have done had they simply had to come to terms with the labourers themselves. Had (he labourers' case been advocated by one- of themselves instead of by a- paid agitator suffering from the.exuberance of youth there was little doubt the farmere would have- shown a more conciliatory ■ spirit) towards the men. Another person. questioned on the subject, defended Mr Thorn,-and praised him -as being an able and intelligent man. He further affirmed that it was nonsense saying/that a union should, not liave.a. leader :ur organiser, or what some people referred to as-au agitator. "Why, even the Employers'. Federation had an organise!" in the' person of Mr Pryor and nobody ever heard him called an agitator. Oil! no! agitators only led the working classes! The worker lat-t mentioned made a suggestion, which, if carried out, would, I>° believed, have far-reaching - effects. It was that, instead of selling their wool and grain to merchants and commission agents the farmers should adopt the co-operative marketing principle, that, is to say, that. if the farmers say of South Canterbury were all to consign their'produce to their own stores and- allowed their own representative to deal with it they could obtain better prices and would save the payment of large sums of money in the shape of ccnuni»>ion: and would tli<>n be able to give their employees a bigger - share-of the value of the products of their labouis. At present, said the speaker, the "sharks," as he.termed the merchants and agentS) were getting a ehare of. the

wealth of the land out of all proportion to the amount of labour they put in to the creating of this wealth. Jn fact the whole system required altering, so that the producers should derive the full benefit of rf heir labours. ~ A'former official of the Shearers' Union, which Iff the way was not directly concerned with the farm labourers' dispute, said that with reference in the claims of the shearers for increased pay, jf the (Jtmn fvjw fit to'ffeati tlfe shearers as they had done Iris ordinary farm hands, there woiild probably toe trouble by the time tiie riext shearing seasoil commenced, for thete *as a feeling that shearers were not adequately paid »>■ comparison _• with slaughtermen, wiIOSS *Utk, he c-aid, was not "so arduous as -eheafl'ag. - and not so nificli tiiiife "'as lost. He was a slaughtermau himself tiis as a shearef*x. al,c J after 30 years' expefifence. he wits pf ntiiiiion ithat shearing should be abetter paid tK«n iilling. He said thai sMatefs often did not/average £2, per week n'hen on the board, owing -to broken time, for one clay's rain generally meaffi <#<* -flafore days in Which to allow the sheep I'J dry sufficiently fMorS being shoni. Arid tiieli tliere was ytbat tras known as "waiting tiiilf;" ifiß statioij .otraers should certainly pay il)f. Supposing, he pointed out, a group of sheaWf;; at So. 1 »hed cub out on Saturday, and No. 6 .sM a IP*r1 P *r rnilfe further on, at which they nad for them till tts li'Howing Friday,, and in the meantime the ort-uef e.'f No. 3 shed was willing to give the meil a start on til© ififes-feirig Monday, the stiearers woiild be intimd to go to No. 3 at once set +iiafc thSy would no I'm-- B,lt ,/ i<u a iiiiild not clib out by Friday, in time to etiabte OIS ptett to return to No. 2, where.the sueSp"'ff«2 ihe rauc /'' abouts were all ready and ln g fol ' tlielri, it Tf.f>uld be seen that; tlx? st-iwiter of k'o. 2 \Mifild be in a. quandary.ltwould therefore be to the of file ma St tit 80. 2 to engage the' men ' immediate! f tM.f 60 of fcq- land to pay them "waiting Ai'ißs ' for perhaps four or five days rather th;M tiSzt he : sbotfld be left without, shearers otl FfftwO" morflifld -frhetj. everything was in read!, ners.' t'tie speato said he had pointed tiiis Ota 'to seteta.l owners and managers ttf sheep stations afld that they had agreed that ffi'iai rtti ecotioaiiesl point of viei*- the pavment of a, Jew days waiting time would generally be to- -tbeir advantage, especially on back country runs, and «iiefl fhe wool jllatket was rising and it was desiraWe to get the wool to the sales as expeditiously its pws'ibte.