FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9194, 25 March 1908, Page 4

FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

THE CONCILIATION BOARD AT DARFIELD. The sitting of the Conciliation Board at Darfield was continued yesterday. Mr W. Mimon presided, and all the members of thq Board were present. Messrs R. Evans and J. D. Acland represented the Farmers' Union and the Farm Labourers 5 Union was represented by Mr E. Kennedy. Mr Evans called evidence. • Thomas Reid, farmer and sheep breeder, D&rfieTE, taid that he objected to portions of the Union's claims, and particularly to that which -removed the responsibility of a ploughman for the grooming of his horses. He considered that if the workers' demands were acceded" to, many of the smaller farmers, who carried considerable mortgages, would have to go to the wall. He considered it was nonsense to have a meal between breakfast and -dinner in the morning. Fixed holidays were impracticable, and it was best to allow employers and workers to arrange holidays to ouit themselves. He objected to a Saturday half-holiday, and considered that the rates claimed for boys were too high. v He did not believe in preference to unionists. Contracting was a system which was in the interests of the worker, who could make more money than by day labour. He conY eidered that the wages at present paid gave the workers their fair share of the product of a farm, as there were so many ups and downs in farming. An addition to wages would affect the productiveness of Canterbury so far as grain was concerned, as farmers would drop grain-growing ' and start sheepfarming. One award could not cover the varying conditions which prevailed in Canterbury. It was not possible to regulate hours for work amongst sheep. To Mr Kennedy — It would do him no harm at all if the conditions at present worked under in regard to hours were made compulsory. A competent allround farm-hand would be worth 25s a week to him, but he would have to be capable of setting up his plough or drill and of "striking out" without supervision. A competent farm-hand would hardly require to be s- machine expert, but he would have. to know a great deal about farm machinery. The reason for so many incompetent farm-hands was that they did not take any intelligent interest in their work. It would be possible to arrange work on his farm ao as to allow a weekly half-holiday, and he would not object to pay overtime if he needed a man i on a half-holi-day. John Wilson, farm labourer, Hororata, said that he did not believe in abolishing contract work. His work was largely done by contract. He i could earn more in this way than under ; the conditions the Union asked for. ; Men would not work so quickly or 6o I well on ordinary wages as they would j when they undertook a contract. There I was no dissatisfaction among the farmj hands of his district. There was a good I deal of talking, but it was only for the i aake of talking. Mr Sheat: "Just the 'same as they

were talking at my place the other day?" The Chairman: "I rule that remark quite out of order." Mr Sheat: " I claim the right to ask a question if I desire." The Chairman : "Any such remark you may make I shall rule as out of order and improper. You have no right to cross-examine a witness in that way." Mr Sheat: "I was not cross-examin-ing the witness. I only asked him a question for my own information." The Chair -nan: " I rule that question out of order." Mr Sheat : " Then I shall ask it again in my own time." In reply to Mr Kennedy, the witness said that if wages were raised the farmers would do less work on their farms. He would lose by the adoption of the Union's conditions, as he would receive less wages. He did not work quite as hard on time wages as he did on contract hours. A man who lived a natural kind of life and> who worked natural hours would stand no chance of getting on as a farm worker. To Mr Acland : There had never been twenty men out of work at Hororata at any time during his knowledge. Herbert Oliver, fanner, Hororata, said that he farmed 440 acres. He could not carry on successfully under the Union conditions. He paid 22s 6d a week to a ploughman, and 15s to another man who .did odd jobs about the place. The man took this low wage because he was unfit for a great deal of farm work. The man had failed to get a situation elsewhere. If the Union's claims were granted 'he would have to discharge that man. He was not making a success of farming, and it took him all his time to get along. He was opposed to any form of preference to unionists. Ernest Parker,' ploughman, Waireka, said that he was brought up as a bookseller, but had to give up that occupation for the good of his health. When he left Christchurch six years ago he was receiving 17s 6d a week. He would now, at the age of twenty-four, probably have been getting 30s a week. He started farm work at 10s a week and " found," and was given a rise of 2s 6d a week after six months. After two years and a half ' he was receiving 17s 6d a week. He was now ploughing for turnips and green feed, and was receiving 25s a week. The food and. accommodation were good. He would not go back to town at £2 2s a week. He preferred present working conditions to those proposed by the Union. Frederick Fookes, farm labourer,' Waddington, said that he preferred to do work by contract, as he had never failed to get a fair price for his labour by that means. He would object to any system tinder which contracting was impossible. Charles Austin, farmer, Sheffield, said that he farmed 320 1 acres, and had been farming practically all his life. He rented his present holding from his father. The land was a flat tableland, and the soil could not be worked inwet weather. He lost sixty d<ays in 1905, and thirty days in 1907 through rain. He chiefly grew sheep feed. An increase of wages would make it impossible for him to carry on. He employed from two to three men, and paid them from 20s to 25s per week. The Board adjourned till the following day. !