THRESHING RATES

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18236, 21 November 1924, Page 14

THRESHING RATES

» —— DISPUTE! BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT. The dispute between the Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers' Union, and ■ the owners of threshing mills, was heard before the Court of Arbitration yesterday afternoon. There was a fairly large - attendance in the body of the Court of parties directly and indirectly interested in the matter. Mr Justice Frazer presided,. and withlinn were Messrs AVm. Scott (employers' representative), and H. Hunter (workers;' representative). The only recommendations from the Conciliation Council deals with minor points. The union was represented by Mr A. Cook, and Mr.G. Sheat appeared on behalf of the Threshing Mill Owners' Association. Mr W. "W. Mulholland said he appeared on behalf of the Farmers' Union.

His Honour: What has the Farmers' Union got to d6'with it.? Farmers are hot employers in this district. Mr. Mulholla'nd said) they claimed to appear as a third party, under section 2: of the 1920 amendment of the 1.0. and A. Act. .-. _

The'question was discussed at some length.. ■.■.■.„■ His Honour said the farmer was interested merely as a customer, or consumer. The section was passed to allow unregistered organisations to appear before the Court. There were a number of guilds of workers, and there were organisations! of employers not registered tinder the Act, and it was to enable'such guilds and organisations to appear before the Court that the section was provided. If a clerks'.- union made an application for an award, an unregistered; clerks' guild.might have- a verv direct interest in the proceedings, and would certainly be affected by the result: it was to allow them to appear before the Court that the,.section was made. law. He did not think that there was anything in the ,section, or in the history of it, to justify the Court in accepting as a third party persons who were consumers. . Mr Sheat said the Court on a previous occasion had permitted the. Farmers' Union to be a party. .His Honour said • the Court was not bound by what was done., on a previous occasion. In further / remarks, his Honour said that it would be competent for the Fanners' X r nion to arrange ■for evidence on its behalf being called by Mr Sheat. His Honour added that as the Court-was-due'in Wellington the following dav, they could not sit longer than 5 p.m.. He suggested, that the parties should limit themselves to essential matters and readjustments of a minor character.'lt'would be useless to ask the' Court to tear up the old award. Mr Mulholland said he had oeen empowered to appear on behalf of threshing machine owners cited. The Union asked for 2s per hour and fpund, stooTc threshing'2s 3d per hour and found; and that the hours ot work shall lie between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. except on Saturdays, when they shall be betwsen 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. ■ On the application of Mr W. Cecil Prime, the namo of J. C. N. Gnc;g, Longbeach, was struck out of the list of'parties, as Mr Grigg threshes Only on bis own farm. 'Mr Cook, in opening the case for the Union, said that in its main claims the Union had been guided by the principle which for several years had been incorporated in awards in South Canterbury and Otago. Those principles were: _A definite, limitation of hours of work, and a provision for overtime payments when ".hose were exceeded; a definite obligation on the part of the employer to emoloy ten men on the mill apart from the cook; the'abolition ot the contract system, and the fixation of all wa«es at hourly rates, such rates to take into calculation the provision of food by the employers. Those conditions were included in awards -ot Ota<*o and Southland and South Canterbury in 1919, and in part were probably in operation before, the employers concerned being quite ' nareeaWe. Of the total grain yield in Canterbury 80 per rent, came from the ■™**«™J** of the nrovinoe-that- part affected by the award. North Canterbury produced four times as much grain as South Canterbury, but .the. nunbe.; "J threshing mills engaged in the .ndustry was only twice a* many in the noith aa in the south of Canterbury. William Baker, a threshing ml worker, said the average earnings of a miller a week were between J*™* £3 10s when all expense* had been taken out. The average worker lost a lo Mr f he would call witnesses to nrove th ,t the men in the industry dKofwant the conditions that were "Robert Dalziel, threshing ™" put in a statement showing the tarn ings of men engaged, on his iiiiH. «« alio put in etatemonts showing the effect of the union demands. . . Geo. W. R. Osborne gave similar C TrS°Lill, who runs three *> evidence as to the ■ insurance <*J?f?£ Robert Alexander, directoi -of-. U* .coin Agricultural College,' handedm a 'statement of the cost of Brairt-erowin^ G. W. Lendley, farmer «nd chair man of the Wheat Board;■ said thatU the Union's, demands were- granted,

wheat-growing would be abandoned. Frederick Alexander, a mill hand, said the "feeders" did nob want to tome under the award. Frank Gutthlag, a null hand and a |nomber of the Union, said he had received n 0 notion sent to him by the Union that it proposed to endeavour to have the conditions altered. •Decision was reserved.