THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19989, 4 November 1927, Page 8

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

CASE OF FACTORY HANDS y; PFT, CT OF ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL. EVIDENCE BEFORE LABOCK BILLS COMMITTEE. [ Special “ Chronicle ” Service, j WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. The Labour Bills Committee of the House of Representatives took evidence on Wednesday as to the effect of the proposed Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment. Bill on the employees rn butter and cheese factories. Representatives of that industry Cx-p-assed the opinion that it would be in the interests of the employees if the present system of cone Hauen and arbitration were retained. The chairman of the committee is Sir John Luke and the other members i present were: The Minister oi Labour (Hon. G. J. Anderson . Messrs J. Horn (W&katipu). R. MeKeen (Wellington South), W. A. Veitch (Wanganui), F. Waite iCiulha), E. J. Howard (Christchurch South I, A. D. McLennan (Franklin), and W. D. Lysnar (GisMr W. Nasih, representing the National Labour Legislation Committee ■was also present. John Robinson, secretary of the Traces and Labour Council. Dunedin, who had given evidence the previous day, when the proceedings of the committee were nut open to the Press, was cross-examined. In reply to Me MeKeen, witness said he could recall cases where men had been victimised for taking part in inidustrial disputes. Th«* Bill struck at the foundation of trade unionism and , gave power to the Judge alone to break an award after it ha<i ba*n made. To the chairman: In certain directions piecework would be detrimentally affected by the Bill. To the Minister of Labour: He did not think he would be justi fial in giving the names of men who had been victimised but would hand them to the committee. The Minister: You said the Cour: would have power to break an award after it is made. Do you know that is only in cases where new methods are introduced; so that your statement is only half correct? Witness: It is fully correct. Mr Waite: Under the present system do the unions have every confidence in their representatives on th»* Court? Witness: They have, but they wou*> not under the amendment. They might lose confidence in a man at any time while holding to the method of his appointment. I do not think the employers’ ami the employees’ representatives on the Court have “cancelled” one another out. Witness farther said he could not give definite instances where piecework had destroyed comradeship in a union. Under favourable conditions he supposed piecework would not be injurious to the health of those en- ' gaged. Protect, on of Court Imperative Thomas o’Byrne, secretary of the Otago and Southland Cheese and But ter Factory Employees’ Union, and ai•o secretary of the Managers’ Union, stated that some years ago the managers formed a union as their position was bad. Since then agreements had been arrival at before the Conciliation Council, and only on two occasions had ±ey ha»i to go to tht. court. ’1 ne men wanted the present system retained as they had got on well under it. It had , been a good thing for the industry generally. The dairy factory managers hacr passed a resolution recently to the effect that the formation of the union ha/i done away with the slavery pre- \ ailing in the industry prior to the protection affonied by the Act, and emphatically protested against the proposal to remove the dairy factory workers fiom the Court’s protection. As the unly union working a seven-day week wirn no limit of hours they considered • the Court’s protection absolutely imperative. If not given that protection they would not hesitate tu use their economic power and demand justice. The chairman: I think you Lad better stick to the Bill; otherwise we shall be here until Christmas. Witness: “I warn to show why we should not be cut out from the Art. The are at present not tuo good, but if we go back to the old days men will be asktvj. when seeking employment, to state what wages they want, and their wives and daughters will have to gu into the factories ami work with them to eke out the earnings under the new contract system. ’ Witness declared that where unscrupulous employers were concerned it was absolutely necessary to have the law behind the men. If there were no legal protection, agreements with employers would not be carried out. The Act was at present their only hope aiirl their sheet-anchor. If the dairy industry were exempted there would be great discontent among the* employees. No oiece work was allowed in the union. The enemies of trade unionism were evidently behind the Bill. He felt sure that victimisation would come about and men would get the “sa«k.” but rt wag always hard to prove it. A Question of Grading Mr Lysnar: Do you not think that there is a vast difference in the ability of the managers Witness: Nut a terrific amount. is it not difficult to grade ability?— “Perhaps it is.” Do you grade dairy managers as jqual— —“ You cannot call them equal any more than you can grade members of Parliament.” The chairman: It would be hard to giaije members of Parliament. Mr Lysnar: Take lawyers: Is there not a great difference between the qualifications of lawyers? Witness: Not in their charges.’ 7 Obtaining Assessors In reply to further questions, witness said he considered that he’ was better qualified to sit as an assessor than a practical man who did the work. The chairman: Will there be any difference in obtaining assessors uu the employees’ side? Witness: You might get some men to do it, but you will not get independent men. The Minister: You say this Bil] will undermine unionism? Witness: It will lead to endless trouble I

I>t. ycu wi.-h t?.e committee seriously to believe that?—“lt might wake the workers up to use their economic powers and owuld bring the industry into trouble, and the employees might go out on strike, which they cannot do under the Arbitration Court. That is not my opinion but that seems the idea of the managers in a resolution they passed recently.”

Reduction in Wages Feared James P. John. representing the Auckland Dairy Factories’ Union said his union had always gone to the Court and hardly ever troubled the Conciliation Council and then only with rggpeet to question of hours. The highest paid man n a butter and? cheese factory was the first assistant who received £5 3s 6d a week. He was not referring to the managers. Men were not satisfied with their position, hoping to improve their wages in time. If they were cut from the Act any hope in that respect would disappear. There had never been any suggestion of a strike in the industry. If the Act were altered he feared the wages would come back. What opportunity for recreation had workers who were compelled to work seven /lays a week? They should not be ask-

<d to surrender themselves body and soul to the so-called necessities of the industry. If the Bill were passed a number of workers had assured him that they would say good-blye to the industry and there would bo industrial strife and chaos.

To Mr MeKeen: Even if they came to an agreement at a rounri*-the-tabfe conference they would still require force of the Court behind it. knew of no employee in any other industry who received only £4 Is per week for 6J hours.

Tu Air Waite: They were more concerned with the hours than the wages. It should not be possible to work a man to the utmost human limit.

To Mr Howard: He defied anybody to say that there had been any suggestion of a sympathetic strike.

Mr McLennan: Are there not som«fine workers in these factories who play cricket and football and go to church?

Witness: I do not know of any Air AlcLennan: Well, I do.

Labour Disputes Act. Mr Lysnar: You think if the Act were passed your union would be ostracised and have no redress? Witness: None whatever. Have you considered that you could take action under the Labour Disputes Act? —“I have not. but I am told it is much more complicated. There is machinery there, and you ar** wrong in assnnrmg there is none.— “Well, assuming that, and we could reach no finality it would be open to us to strike, but we do not advocate such a course.” Do you think you would go back to 4 o’clock work in the morning if the Bill was passed?—“WelL it leaves it open.” A Taranaki Witness On behalf of the Taranaki Dairy Employees’ Union, Robert Fulton opposed the Bill, which he affirmed was not framed in the interest or the dairy farmers either. At one time an agreed schedule was placed on the walls of the factory and the men taken on saw what the wages were.. But. some of the employers failed tu keep the agreement. A wage, say of £3 7s, was settled on. plus butter and cream, etc., free, but the employee found when he got on lhe job that he received £3 7s less the articles referred; to, meaning a reduction of 10s or 12s a week. Two strikes occurred in the districts but since the anion was established the workers’ position had improved slightly. Before the award men worked 81 hours a week and in one factory 90 hours. There had been considerable trouble during the term of the award, but a manager of a company had assured him that cost of reproduction had come down due to the co-operation and good-iwll now shown by the employees. From being in a bad position that company was now on a good footing. The Bill, if passed, wouTn break down the present good feeling and bring about an era of strife. After witness had been cross-examin-er! the committee adjourned until next day. BEFORE THE COMMITTEE FURTHER EVIDENCE TAKEN ASSESSORS OR JUDGES? (Per Press Association.) » WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. Further evidence from the employees ’ side regarding the Arbitration Act was given before the Labour Bills Committee to-day. Mr Charles Henry Chapman, secretary of the Wellington Typographical Union, said that he was instructed to ask for the withdrawal of the Bill on the ground that it would cause industrial disturbance. The unions were opposed to the limitation of the choice of assessors. While there had been cases where it appeared that the Court had favoured one side more than the other iu the light of evidence, the weight of opinion iu the Typographical Union was in favour of its retention in its present form. With regard to piecework, witness said that he neither favoured nor wa< against it, but he did say it would only work well under collective bargaining and that individual agreements would make trouble. The Farmers’ Viewpoint Air W. J. Polson, representing the Farmers' Union, said that while his organisation approved generally of the Bill there were points it did not approve of. It would prefer a judge alone, or three judges, preferably the latter. Assessors were invariably violently partisan and were subject to re-election every three years. It seem'd that the principle of replacing men at the end of their term who did not give agreeable judgments was subversive of British justice. The Court admitted of the provision of experts when necessary, so that three judges would be a suitable arrangement. They were not seeking the abolition of preference to unionists, which he considered desirable, but if there were preference there should be no striking. He asked that preference should automatically cease where any union had committed a breach of the law. In disputes in which farmers were substantially concerned they should be permitted to appear as a body at the <’ourt. The shearing industry affected farmers to only a triAc extent as

compared with the effect of all the awards in which they were interested. The chairman: You condemn the exemption of the farmers’ industry, including shearing and freezing?—Yes. Partial Relief Only Mr Nicholson, secretary of the New Zealand Sbeepowners’ Federation, said that the Bill would only give partial relief and did not go to the root of the matter because indirect charges through, the cost of production in the Dominion were a bigger burden on the producer than any direct charges through the awards of the Court, which might apply to factories but not to the farm. The Court should be entirely independent of outside influence, and its judgments should be purely on the evidence. He believed that the cost of every article had increased, because it was uneconomical. Last year, in spite of the cost of living having gone down, the Court increased the shearers’ wages at the time of the depression.

Asked if an industry that could not pay a living wage should not cease to exist, witness said that that could not be applied to a primary industry.

EXEMPTIONS UNSOUND EMPLOYERS’ CONTENTION. ”SELLING THE FARMER A PUP.” (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Nov. 3. The New Zealand Employers’ Federation delegates from all sections yesterday considered the Arbitration Amendment Bill. It was agreed that some form of arbitration was a necessary feature. If collective bargaining was to be a success it must depend upon the goodwill and loyalty of both employers and I workers to the system, and this could be secured only while both employers and workers had coniidence in the system. The present arbitration system had won the coniidence of the majority of the employers and workers, and any amendment should be designed to increase this coniidence. It was essential that the utmost care should be taken to avoid anything likely to endanger confidence. Anything in the nature of party or class legislation should be absolutely ruled out. The meeting examined most carefully seven different new constitutions, but came to the unanimous conclusion that none was an improvement on or even as good as the present constitution. 'The only alteration suggested was that the term of office of nominated members be extended from three to live years.

As to exemptions of industries it was resolved: “That this meeting is strongly of opinion that the statutory exemption of certain industries is illogical and unsound in principle and further that the present proposals are not in the best interests of the farming community or of the employers and workers generally.

It was also resolved with regard to the preference issue: “That inasmuch as the inclusion of preference in an award is not compulsory, but wholly within the discretion of the Court, this Federation is of opinion that nothing in the present circumstances of the New Zealand industries calls for any statutory action in this matter of preference. Consequently the executive protests most strongly against the passage of the Bill, which, however, bonafide the intention of its Supporters, simply amounts to selling the farmer a pup. ”