I.—9a.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

Friday, 28th July, 1905. A deputation of the New Zealand Employers' Federation attended the Committee. The Chairman: I understand you have come this morning, ladies and gentlemen, to give evidence in connection with the Factories Act Amendment Bill before the House. You understand from the communications you have received that, inasmuch as this is a private member's Bill, and for other reasons, the Committee are not opening up the whole question of the Factories Act, so that your evidence is restricted to the subject contained in the Bill that is now before the Committee. Henry Field examined. (No. 1.) 1. What are you? —Secretary of the New Zealand Employers' Federation. 2. Will you make your statement? —We quite understand that we are here this morning to give evidence on the amendment of the Factories Act proposed by Mr. Taylor. I might say that the New Zealand Federation of Employers is authorised in connection with all these labour Bills to speak on behalf of the organized employers of the colony, and that, in addition to our general warrant to represent the employers of the colony on parliamentary matters, we have been expressly desired by the larger associations in Wellington, Dunedin, and Christchurch to present their views to you on this subject. The Dunedin Association has wired as follows: "Dunedin Executive trust you will oppose Taylor's amendment Factory Act." The Christchurch Association writes thus: "I enclose copy of a letter received to-day from Messrs. Hayward Bros., picklemanufacturers, with reference to this Bill, and am instructed to ask if you will be good enough to bring the matter under the notice of the Federation Executive, with the view of having the views of Messrs. Hayward Bros, represented at the proper quarter. There can be no doubt that there are many other firms throughout the colony whose employment of women must be under conditions similar to those under which Messrs. Hayward employ them, and that in the event of the Bill passing in its present shape a considerable percentage of the workers would be deprived of earning a livelihood." The following letter is from Messrs. Hayward Bros.: "Should this amendment become law, we consider it will seriously hamper a large number of the manufacturers all over the colony, and will seriously react on quite a number of the workers also. Unfortunately, there are all over the world a certain class of girls and women who, owing to their physical and mental capacity, are totally unfit for any responsible expert labour, hence they are employed at rough unskilled work. These poor women and girls are quite incapable of doing the expert and responsible work that their more fortunate and brainy sisters are capable of performing to entire satisfaction; therefore they should be allowed to earn their livelihood and work for a smaller wage than the expert worker. If the amendment in question is allowed to become law, all the manufacturers throughout the colony will be forced to dismiss and put out of employment all these poor workers who, through no fault of their own, are incapable of earning the statute wage, which we consider would be a very grave injustice. We will here give an example of what we mean : During the autumn of every year we employ from thirty to fifty women and girls peeling onions. They are all paid 3d. per gallon for the work, and, being on piecework, they come and go to work at their own convenience. Now, some of the younger women, who are nimble of finger and quick of eye, earn from £1 to £1 10s. per week, while the older women, with stiffer fingers and weaker eyesight, can only earn from 10s. to £1 per week. Now, we should be compelled, if the amendment in question were carried, to dismiss all the old ladies who cannot earn tlie 17s. per week, and if the State forced us to do this it would be depriving these poor eld people from earning an honest few shillings, which they are in urgent need of. We trust you will supplement these remarks by your own more forcible ones, and urge the Vigilance Committee to do their utmost to prevent this very questionable amendment from becoming law. P.S.— The usual price paid for peeling onions by pickle-manufacturers in England is l|d. per gallon, exactly half of what we pay here." Then, one of the representatives of the laundry business, who' has the largest laundry in the colony, and I understand there is only one that is equal to it in the Commonwealth —in Sydney —and who was unable to be present to-day, wishes us to represent his views and the views of the laundry people generally throughout the colony. I refer to Mr. Wills, of Hanson Street, who has a large place fitted up with all the up-to-date appliances. He writes, " I wish to enter my protest against the Factories Act Amendment Bill of 1905, which provides that all female workers of twenty years or over shall receive not less than 17s. a week. (1.) I find that many females do not start laundry-work until after twenty years of age, and as laundry-work is now a science with its complicated machinery, it requires years of experience, just as other professions do, to become a competent laundress; therefore it is not reasonable, neither will my business allow me, to start such at the high rate of 175., which is 240 per cent, higher than the present minimum fixed by law. (2.) A considerable proportion of my work is from intercolonial shipping, which, if compelled to pay higher rates, would certainly have their work done in Australian ports. I am compelled to compete with the Chinamen, who now run a considerable number of laundries in Wellington. These are not restricted to hours, and are content to live and do live in such a way that they are able to effect a saving. I am compelled to compete with charitable institutions which pay no wages (inmates merely working for food), and who are hot restricted to hours, They do not come within reach of the Factories I—l. 9a.