FARM LABOURERS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 282, 22 August 1908, Page 5

FARM LABOURERS.

, THE CANTERBURY DISPUTE. NO AWARD MADE. IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE COURT. (BY TELEGRAPH—rRESS ASSOCIATION.) Chrlstohurch, August 21. Tho decision of the Arbitration Court in the Farm Labourers' Industrial Dispute was filed this morning. After reviewing the circumstances under which tho dispute came before the Court and setting out the demands of tho Union, the Court proceeded to give reasons why. an award regulating the work of ploughmen and general hands, harvest hands, and day labourers is impracticable. ,Tho Court went on to say:— "It is clear that the Court has a discretion as to whether it will or will not make an award in any particular case. The existence of an industrial dispute gives jurisdiction to make au award, and that jurisdiction is exercised in most cases, but tho Court is not bound to make ail award in every case that is brought before it.. In the present case tho Court is asked to bring under tho operation of an award all employers engaged in agricultural and pastoral pursuits in the industrial district of Canterbury. If such an award is made tho Court could not _ reasonably refuse to make similar awards in other industrial districts, and what the Court has really to decide on tho present application is whether it is necessary that the wholo_ farming industry of the Dominion should be regulated under tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Acts. Tho Union asks that the hours of work, wages, aud general conditions of work of practically all the workers employed, by all those engaged in tho industry should bo regulated by an award. Now it is obvious that an award dealing with these matters, aud applying as it would do to thousands of employers scattered ajl over the district, and employees too, who resent very much tho attempted interference with, their business, would be difficult of enforcement, and that nothing less than a small army of inspectors would be required to enforce effectually tho provisions of such an award. CASE MUST BE MADE OUT. "In view of this fact and of tho magnitude o.lso of the interests involved, both directly, and indirectly in this dispute, and of the serious results to not only tho farming industry, but indirectly to the prosperity of the whole' Dominion, that might, follow from the exercise of its power of regulation, the Court should not interfere the necessity for doing so has been clearly mado out, and should not attempt to make regulations for the sake merely of regulating before such interference is justified. It must bo clear that there are substantia.l grievances or abuses which can. bo redressed effectually by the Court, and that tho benefits to be obtained by • its interference will .more than compensate for any mischief that may result from such interference." The demands of tho Union are then discussed at some length, and on tho question, of wages the Court remarks that the dissatisfaction alleged to exist does npt amount to moro than this: "That a large number of workers would like to have their wages increased. That is doubtless a perfectly natural and laudable desire on their part, but thie existenco of such a desire is not itself a sufficient ground, for the interference of tho Court." ' ,

The rates. of wages are. then discussed, with passing reference to food and accommo- | dation, and the Court then intimates — "It appears to us, therefore, that dealing with fuAn labourers generally tho Union failed to provo the existence of any. substantial grievance' or abuse that would justify the interference of ! the Court with the whole-farming industry of Canterbury." After discussing further difficulties involved relating to hours of-work, the'judgment states: "It appears to us therefore to be quite impracticable to fit any definite hours for the daily work of a t general farm hand without altering _ materially the system under which farming is'' carried on at tho present time." ■ DIFFICULTY OF MINIMUM WACE. On tho question of fixing a minimum wage the Court says: "Wo aro Hot satisfied that it is practicable to fix what would be a fail minimum wago for a general farm hand. If the minimum were fixed low at, for example, 20s. per , week tho result might be to bring down tho wages of those who aro receiving higher wages, and this is certainly hot I desirable result. If oh the other hand the miniijium were fixed at 255. or 275. 6d. pel .week the result would be to throw a considerable burden on the farming industry and increase by many thousands of pounds the cost of farming if it is to be carried or. in tho future as it has been carried on in the past. The effect of any such. increase in wages would be to discourage the employment of labour and to induce farmers to avoid grain-growing and other operations that involve the. employment bf labour. "The conclusion we havo come to on the whole mattor is that it is. Hot practicable to make an award fixing the hours of work and wages for general-farm hands without altering seriously the conditions under which farming is now carried on. If a strong case had been made out for interference tho Court might havo felt compelled to make an award on the subject, and to attempt to regulate tho hours of work-and wages of general farm hands.' Such a case however has not been made out and the Court is thus relieved from the necessity of making tho perilous attempt to regulate by award the wnole farming industry of the Dominion." THE DAY LABOURERS. . On the question of labour and workers not dealt with above, the Court doals as follows; —"The consideration of tho case of the day labourer was -postponed, and we now proceed to deal with tho subject. Tho evidenco shows that a large number of farmers pay their day labourers 7s. per day and upwards, while others- pay only 6s. per day, and somo as low as ss. per day.. Wo think that anything less than 7s. per day is not a living wage where the worker has to maintain a wife and children, and that so far aa the day labourer is concerned a case has been made out for the interference of the Court. In ordinary circumstances, tho Court would, made an award dealing with this case. ■ The day labourers form, however, only a small fraction' of the workers employed by farmers, and we are not justified in bringing farmers paying 7s. to Bs. under the operation, of an award for tho sake of benefiting a small number of day 'labourers who are'paid less than 7s. per day. As will bo seen hereafter, a recommendation is made on this subject, and farmers will no doubt see tho wisdom of giving effect to this recommendation. ' : "So far as farming hours of work and . wages are concerned, there would have been no difficulty in making an award with regard to workers who are employed specially to do harvest work, but thero seemed to In no necessity for the interference of the Court ill tho matter. Tho evidence shows that during harvest the hours of work range from ten to twelve per day, and that general harvest hands omployed by tho hour aro paid as usual, Is. per hour and found, whi!<. stackers are paid Is. 3d. to Is. 6d. per hourand found, and that when wojkers are engaged by tho wook for tho work, the wag« most generally paid is 50s. per week and found. General farm hands are also employed to do harvesting work, and are paid a bonus in addition to their ordinary weekly wage. This bonus does' not seem to bo fixed on any settled principle, and the Court'has made a recommendation on this subject to which farmers doubtless will give due consideration. "Tho following are the recommendations which tho Court makes to all farmers in tho Industrial District: — . . • •' "(1) That all day labourers who received only a money payment for their scrviccs BhaJl be paid not loss than 7s. per day. "(2) That when general-farm hands are employed at harvesting tho borraß to bo paid to them shall bo such a sum as will make their for tho time thoy aro actually m harvest work not loss than 50s ' par week. '-'£3) That jchfinoroi.-ifc is roaaanaila ami v

practicable each farm worker shall bo allowed a half-holiday on one day of tho week if ho desires it. ; " (-1) That each regular farm worker shall ■be allowed at least one weok's holiday in tho year on hill pay. ' " (5) That when general farm hands have to milk cows twice a day they shall bo allowed an interval for rest during tho day, in addition to the ordinary dinner hour, xcopt, of course, at the busy, seasons of tho year. "Mr. M'Cullough does not concur in this judgment.: Ho is strongly of opinion that grounds exist which justify and render nocossary tho intorforehco of tho Court, and that it is possible to mako a workablo award on the subject." AWARD FOR SHEPHERDS, ETC. The judgment also,contains tho following clause dealing / with tho subject ' of shepherds, musterors, and packers:— "The' Court ..made; an award this year in tho Otago and Southland districts dealing with. musterors,: and wo havo not been convinced that thoro is any reason why a similar ; award should not. bo mado with . regard." to musterors aud. packers in tho Canterbury district. We propose therefore to make an award botween the Union and tho Sheep-owners' Union fixing the minimum ' . ; wages of musterors at the rato fixed by tho > Otago and Southland award, and fixing those of .packers employed in connection with mustering at 30s. per week. Tho .- award v will apply only to workers who are engaged- specifically as mustorers and packers. Any. regular farm or station hand . who assists in mustering or. who is employed in packing wool will not come ■within' tho scope of tho award." A PROTEST. STATEMENT BY THE WOItKEES' RE- . PEESEXTATIVE. ■ • Mr. J. A. M'Cullough, the workers' representative on the Arbitration Court, when in- . terviowod by 'a reporter, stated that ho most dissented'from the finding of the ' Court, and hf.d handed in a'statement'to the President, in Dunodin. Tho President, however, * refused to embody: this protest in tho' Court's 'finding, merely recording tho fact : that Mr. M'Cullough 'had strongly dissented. ■ Mr. M'Cullough's protest reads as follows Dunodin, August 20, 1903.. .. Ho. Canterbury farm, workers dispute.

Though it,:may. be usual and customary for a member : of the Court when desiring togive a minority "report on any matter upon which he' feels ho cannot conscientiously support the finding of the majority, to simply' record his , disagreement,. yet I feel tliat ;in respect to the judgment given in connection with tho Canterbury agricultural labourers' dispute it is not only ■ essential that I.should;emphaticall>; and definitely protest against the finding in'question;' but. as' the . representative :of the, workers on this industrial tribunal* I should be wanting in my duty towards thoso who havo placcd : me in this position worn 1 1 to allow this important decision to be dealt with in the manner it has been, without; making public tho reasons that havo induced mo to protest. By a Court has adduced a number of reasons why an award in connection with tho, farming industry should 'not bo made. •While'' I have no desire. ; to suggest that tho Court in coming to this, decision has been prompted by any ulterior or unworthy motives, yet I feol confident that not one of the reasons adduced, nor a.ll of themcombined are' sufficient to justify tho 'Court in their refusal to malco an award, nor has this particular case had, in my opinion, meted out, to..it that justice which it has merited. To |be plain; I am' forced to say that the Court has,-by its pronouncement, succecded in disposing temporarily of an important and responsible duty by sheltering behind a number of exaggerated and imaginary arguments that -have .in . one 'form ■ or another . been' ■made, use of by tho farmers for the purposo of obtaining their object. -Efforts and arguments of this character'have been in vogue ever since the first industrial union of workers; attempted to' : obtain ; better working conditions; Repetition has added nothing to theirs value. •! very much that I should bci compelled to express my views in this manner, and still more that there should be tho necessity for my doing • so; but so far as I am personally concerned I have no hesitation in stating that I honestly believe., thjit, though tho .dispute in question presented many difficulties, it was .not singular'in this.respect; that, in 'fact, tbo whole of the;difficulties. could, have been surmounted by ..the Court, and ought to have been surmounted. . It : is 'quite-probable'that tho Court would not have succeeded in giving general-satisfaction in. all directions; yet I am convinced that it was quite within its power, and therefore within its duty,'to have drafted or arranged an award' that would : havo assisted in a very material degree towards .removing many ..of the - anomalies and hardships towards individual- workers which undoubtedly exist'in tho farming industry at, the present, time, and that the accomplishment of this duty would not havo been tho cause of. bringing about the disastrous results .foreshadowed by the Court in its deliverance. • Further,' it appears to mo to be a most extraordinary. and despotic proceeding to say that the/largest section of the workers in this Dominion should be denied the • right to : have thj conditions of their ' livelihood,, their wages and hours, of labour,' fixed by means of that' legislation which has been expressly provided for this , very purpose. In conclusion, 1 expiess tho hope that those whohavo it in their, power' to prevent a recurrence :of what I conceive to be a miscarriago of justice will use that power to obviate and remove a disability .that can -only be regarded, by tho workers as a hindrance to thei r aspirations and to their future prosperity.—(Signed) J. A. M'Cullough, workers' - representative-) on the Arbitration Court.' !: -

In reply' to a question from the' reporter, Mr. M'Oullough said that owing'to his official position he must refrain from saying a 1 good many, things to the farm workers that ho would otherwise havo said. Ho would, however, express' the :liope that they'would not bo. discouraged by this temporary rebuff, but that they would rather see in it an additional reason for more! complete organisation; so that tho victories of tho future would wipe out all memory of tho defeats of the past. . •. -', ' A SHEEPOWNER'S VIEW. "It is - a great victory," said Mr. H. D. Acland, who represented tho sheepowncrs luring tho hearing of tho dispute, when askod • his views on .the Court's decision. "Tho judgment, of the Court and tho award aro a. triumph: for us,, and a vindication of tho . attitude taken up by tho farmors and sheepowners of Canterbury. The award in the musterers' disputo is one. which tho Court would havo been bound, to give in any case, as a similar award had been made in tlio south,_ and tho Court could not have done anything else without stultifying its own . position. . I have always considered and havo said in Court th^t'the demands of tho Union were', simply an attempt by agitators in Christchurch to try and organiso country labour for political purposes. It was an attempt'to prostitute the functions of tho Arbitration Court to. assist them in a new political propaganda. In this thoy havo ignominiously failed. Anyone who investigated the -iomands and understood. country lifo could seo'that they, were'intended to bring the Arbitration Court and regulation into ; tho homes of tho settlers and small farmers. That is the reason why this caso has been so strongly contested,' and we are glad that the Court has refused to allow itself to be used in this way. Tho farmors throughout New Zealand will bo jubilant-over, tho result. Tho case had a moro than local significance. The decision of tho Court has stopped at the very, beginning a principlo which, if adopted, might have half ruined the, country and interfered very seriously with settlement and 'the means of production." ' I "A STRICTLY JUDICIAL DECISION." "The judgment gives a very lucid exposition of the whole'matter," said Mr, Henry Broadhcad, who is a member of the Conciliation Hoard which dealt with tho disputo and reported to tho Court. "Tho. farmers will naturally bo very pleased with tho result. The Court recognises that it would bo. a very risky matter to attempt to regulate tho far•niiii; industry, and I know of no other placo in ilic world whom any serious attempt has bicii made to do what) tho Court has refused

to do. Tho Commonwoalth Arbitration Act, and also tho New South Wales Industrial Disputes Act, specially oxompt tho farming industry. 'It will bo seen that tho Court would 5 havo undertaken a very great responsibility if it bad started to introdueo any regulation in Now Zealand. I think tho decision must bo regarded as a very satisfactory ono. It says a groat deal for tho Court that it had tho courage, in viow of all the machinery brought into oporation to causo an award to bo made, to refuse to make an award. 1 It shows tho wisdom of the Employers relying'on tho Arbitration Court for a strictly judicial decision." MUSTERERS AND PACKERS' DISPUTE. THE AWARD. (DX .TELEGrtAm —'PRESS ASSOCIATION.) . Ghristchurch, August 21. Tho following award has been filed, with the Clerk of Awards in tho matter of an industrial dispute between the : Canterbury Agricultural and Pastoral Labourers' Industrial Union of Workers and the Canterbury Sheepownors' ■ Industrial Union of . Employers. . ' Wages of Musterors and Packers. (a) Mustefers when employed. to muster sheep for-any purpose shall be paid not less than 10s. per day 1 if-engaged for less than a week, £2 2s. per week if engaged for a weok or more, with an additional payment in the last-mentioned case of 10s. for any Sunday on-which any musterer shall bo required to. do any mustering. •(b): Any.musterer required to do any snow raking shall bo. paid not less than 10s. per day while engaged in .such work. ■ (c)/. Packers employed in connection with mustering shall- bo paid not less than £1 10s. per week. •• Youths. Youths may bo employed at not less than tho following rates'.in addition to board and lodging:—For tho first. year, 17s. ,6d. per week; .for. tho second year, £1 2s. 6d. per Tho; proportion of learners to adult 'mustercrs shall bo not more than one to four or fraction of the first four. , . Sleeping; Accommodation. In all cases whore it is reasonably practicable must-erers and packers shall bo provided by employers with good dry sleeping accommodation. on tho hills, and provision shall bo mado for the protection of . all bedding from wet during transit and while in use, .-■• ■ • ■ ■ Food. Sufficient food.of good quality (including butter) shall.be supplied to musterors ana packers by tho employers. Matters In Dispute.

If nay question shall arise in connection with the provisions of this award, or to any matter not provided for by this award, such questions shall bo settled by agreement' between tho particular employer concerned and the local representative of the Union appointed for that purpose, and in default of any such agreement the question shall be determined by tho Stipendiary Magistrate of the District in which tho same shall havo arison.. , Pending tho settlement of any such .question work shall go on as usual, and the settlement or decision may bo made to operate retrospectively. No Discrimination. Employers shall not, in the engagement, or i dismissal of their ' workers, discriminate against members of tho Union, nor in the conduct of their business do anything for tho purpose of injuring tho Union whether directly or indirectly. /When members of the Union and non-mem-bers aro employed together there shall bo no distinction between them and both shall work together in harmony and under the same conditions and shall receive equal pay • for equal work- , ■ ' Exemption of Regular ' Farm and Station • Hands. The provisions of this award shall not apply to any worker who is employed regularly as a farm or station hand, and who assists,in mustering or who does packing for musterors. 'Term of Award, This award shall come into force on September 1,-1908, and' shall continue in force until May 1. 1910. i ■