FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9193, 24 March 1908, Page 4

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

THE CONCILIATION BOARD AT DARFIELD. The hearing of evidence by the Conciliation Board in the farm labourers' dispute was continued yesterday at Darfield. Mr W. Minson, chairman of the Board, presided, and all the members of the Board were present. Messrs D. Jones and. R. Evans represented the Farmers'- Union, and Mr E. Kennedy represented the Farm La- < bourers' Union.. The Labourers' Union having agreed to call no evidence at Darfield, Mr Evans called witnesses. William M'Kie, of Kirwee_ farmer, said that he farmed 204 acres. He objected to all the demands of the Labourers' Union saving those in regard to hours, which seemed "halfreasonable." He employed one man at £1 per week. During the three years he had held his present farm he had not found the business profitable, and he could not afford to pay more wag€ 6 aryi allow his man to work snorter hours. He was considerably in debt, owing to the dry season. The income from the farm this year was £55 less than last, and last year was a bad year. He had lost over £100 in two years, and he was that much worse off than when he started. To Mr Kennedy: He thought 6 a.m. was too late to start work. Work should be started at 5.30 a.m. It was' reasonable to ask for payment for overtime. It was impossible to work hard-and-fast hours for harvest work, as the work must be done while conditions were favourable. A man who ploughed with six horses did not deserve any more wages than a man with three , horses. He could not afford to pay men working horses £2 15s a week at harvest time. A fair wage was 23s a week, working from 5.30 a.m. to 7 p.m. He paid harvesting hands Is an hour when employed by the day, and they " found ", themselves, save for a light meal twice a day. He employed a boy of about 15 generally, and paid him 10s to los a week A according to what he could do. He would not put a boy of 14 v ar 15 on to ploughing with a four-horse team unless he had had plenty of experience. The boy worked the same hours as anyone else. He thought that if overtime was paid the employer should not be asked to allow holidays on full pay. In thirtyfive years' farming experience, he had never met an employee who was capable of working without supervision. Daniel MulhoiLand, farmer, Darfield, said that he farmed 1050 acres. He had been farming for twenty-two years. He employed only one hired man, as he had three sons. He did not pay his sons wages, but they were quite satisfied. There was no dissatisfaction in the district among farm labourers. The witness paid this man £80 per year, with free use of a. house, feed for a horse and cow, and an annual bonus of £5. He paid Is per hour for harvest work. It was absurd to ask that stackers should be paid Is 6d per hour. Stacking work was the easiest work in the paddock. He objected to the limitations placed on boy labour. His own boys started working four and fivehorse plough teams at the age of about thirteen. It was the lightest work on a farm. The working hours on his farm were from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., horses being attended to before and after the ordinary work started. He considered that it was 6illy to demand preference to unionists. If an award was made to cover farm workers he would dispense with permanent outside assistance, and would only employ casual labour when necessary. To Mr Kennedy: The Union's demands were absurd. Farm labourers could not be worked under an award, even under an award which fixed th© hours from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. An award which fixed the hours from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. would be no gooa. either. All that was desired was the retention of present conditions. The work varied, and the hours had to vary with the work. He paid 7s a day for casual work. Threshing could be done best under contract, as, far as the farmer was concerned, as then no supervision was needed, as would be the case if payment were by the hour. He f objected to any 6et holidays being established. In twenty-two years he had only had one competent man in his employ, and this man, although a firstclass hand with horses, could not stack. A competent farm labourer should know every branch of the work, and „be capable of managing a farm. He would pay such a man 25s a week if ho nflfidAff i_il__ Thomas Clark, . ploughman and general farm hand, Hororata, said that he j thought it impossible to work a farm satisfactorily under the Union conditions or under any set rules. A 'weekly half -holiday would be of no benefit. He had been working in the district for six years, and had never had any trouble in getting a day off when he wanted one. He had done no work since Tuesday last, owing to the rain, and had been out shooting rabbits for his own amusement. He was quite satisfied with liis position. He was paid 22s 6d a week with a bonus of £5 for harvest work. There was no 'dissatisfaction among farm labourers in the district. He was giving evidence of his own accord. He could do any work on a farm. He was treated as one of the family in his present employment. To Mr Kennedy : It was possible farmers could afford to pay more than they did at present. He did not know why it was impossible for farm labourers to work under an award. He worked eight hours a day with the horses yoked up He had an hour for dinner, including the time occupied in feeding the horses. He would sooner have an hour for dinner than an hour and a half. He could do more work that way. He would rather receive 22s 6d a week than 27s 6d. He preferred present conditions to those asked for by the union, because if it was left to the boss, there was some " give and take." He got a holiday every time there was a big race-meeting in Christchurch, and was paid for it,-. and he got a holiday during tho whole of " Cup week." He also got New Year's Day, Christmas Day and Good Friday. He would not take a 5s rise if it was given to him. He had been asked to join the Farm Workers' Union, and had refused. John Deans, sheep farm manager at Homebush, said that he had managed a farm of 10,000 acres since 1902. He at present paid ploughmen 25s a week with a £5 bonus for harvest, day labourers 6s a day, with double rations for a machinery expert who did general farm work ; 5s 6d a day and found for a man past his prime, who did a general labourer's work, while another man received 25s a week. A married man was paid £85 a year and found with a £5 bonus. A shepherd was paid 27s 6d a week and found, with grazing for a horse and a cow and a £10 bonus, while another received 30s a week with the same privileges and a bonus of £10. A man employed on gorse-grubbihg, by contract, earned £101 last year, not working full time. A couple of men, one of whom worked 6ix weeks and another three weeks, earned a cheque of £40 on a stocking and forking contract. The .contract system gave a worker a better chance to make and save money than payment by day or week, as it increased a man's earning power. There was no dissatisfaction at Homebush among the men. . An award which would cover his working conditions could not fit the conditions of a small place. An award to cover the whole of Canterbury would- be impossible. ' The Board adjourned till the following day. ' \ . ■