SHEARER'S DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 863, 8 July 1910, Page 8

SHEARER'S DISPUTE.

WHAT THE MEN SAY. REPLY TO MR. PRYOR'S LETTER, .A CONFERENCE PROPOSED. (By Teleeraoh—Prcsg Association.! Christchurch, July 7. Jlr. Laracy, secretary of the Shearers' Association, has forwarded the following letter to the Minister for Labour in reply to tho statements made by the secretary of tho New Zealand Employers' Moderation:—• Sir, —With regard to the shearers' dispute, as a good deal of dust is at present being thrown iu tho eyes of the general public and of the shearers themselves by tho sheep-owners and their representatives in the newspaper press and elsewhere, I desire to state briefly our position : (1) Shearing is at present regulated in Now Zealand -by three awards, one in the North Island for 20s. and found, and two in the South Island for 18s. and found. Thus the shearers in tho North island receive 11 per cent, more money for doing the same work as tho men in the South Island. (2) To remedy this state of things tile shearers proposed to submit conditions of work which would be suitable to the whole of New Zealand, and with that end in view discussed tho matter at their conference in Wellington last March.. A rough draft set of conditions of some forty or fifty clauses was printed, embodying many alternative clauses, and many clauses which would necessarily be rejected before the revised conditions went to tho Court. Before this revision had taken place tho sheep-owners themselves drafted conditions and filed a copy of the same conditions in different industrial districts. (3) These conditions were first considered in Maslerton by the sheep-owners and shearers meeting together, and a partial agreement was arrived at. It was also agreed that undecided points, such as crutching, should be left to tho Court. The price in the employers' demands was 17s. 6<1., a reduction of 2s. Cd. per 100 on the North Island rates. Tho shearers declined to entertain any reduction, and wanted the rate fixed as formerly agreed to, viz., 20s. per 100. (4) Next, tho same' demands of the employers were discussed in Canterbury, but tho Canterbury owners declined to accept the agreement arrived at in Masterton by their fellow sheep-owners. (5) Mr. Pryor, the secretary of the Employers' Association, alleges now that I, as secretary for the shearers, declined to let the Court's decision at its first sitting hold good for the Dominion. What I did state in a private conversation was that, considering tho matter had been dealt with first in the Wellington district and a partial agreement como to there, I thought Wellington should bo the place at which a Dominion award was considered. Wo were willing then, and are willing still, to let our conditions of work 1» settled in tho place chosen by tho employers themselves, to open proceedings, viz., the Wellington district. I publicly make this statement now that the shearers are perfectly willing to meet in Wellington representatives of North Island and- South Island employers and thrash out tho whole matter. It is not practicable to take now the Canterbury decision of the Court as a Dominion award, because no provision has been made for tho representation beforo the Court, of employers and workers in other districts. (6) With regard to the reasonableness of the rate of 205., Mr. Pryor has quoted misleading figures in an attempt to showthat the shearing rates have gradually increased for tho last few years. The fact is that for many years the rate was -Os., and it was gradually reduced by the employers to 155., and an attempt mado to reduce it to 12s. Gd. By organisation til© shearers have succeeded in raising the rates to some extent, but even now c o nn' a^os nre b ac k to their old level or Jjs., a rate which has prevailed practicality without interruption iu tho North island.

• V''! 1 re " ar d t° tho suggestion that m declining to engage at less than 20s. wo are dictating" to the Court, as a fact wo are acting on the advice of his Honour Mr. Justice Sim given to us in tho lm , ,? nn F of our case in Canterbury. following extract from tho verbatim report proves this:— His Honour: There was no maximum r «n?ri n a«'ard, only a minimum. Witness: li Ul how could they get the maximum except by striking? His Honour: They need not take the work; they could go away." That is exactly the attitude adopted by the shearers. Wo are "going away" inn" 1 ,V vo '', k lmtil c an get 20s. per 100 As for the contention that this con--1-1 s, a strike or an "incitement to strike, I quote the following newspaper report of a ruling of his Honour, Mr. Justice Sim, in tho Canterbury threshing dispute: "The rates would only be fixed as minimum rates. If in a bad season men wanted higher rates it would not bo a striko if thoy refused to work for the minimum rate fixed by the award."

u also point out that when recently an advertisement was inserted i?r t'js/'Otago Daily Times" bv Mr. l\ aducll and Mr. Cooper (tiro of our members) advising shearers .not to engage under a certain rate, and the matter came before 3lr. Justice Sim, ho held that neither of these men were "workers, that is shearers, because they were Il °t actually engaged in that employment at the time. Many men are shearers only for a few weeks in the year. They liavq other occupations and now they decline to leave those occupations for less than 20s. per 100 for shearing. They will, as Mr. Justice Sims says, go awav from tho shearing. In conclusion I suggest that' as soon as possible three representative North Island owners and three representative South Island owners meet six representative shearers in Wellington and confer on the basis of tho Masterton partial agreement, the present Canterbury award, and the provisions of the present North Island rate, viz., 20s. per 100. Such a conference could easily arrive at an agreement which would ensure industrial pence for the sheep-owners so long as the present conditions of work are maintained. Tho present difficulties have been manufachrr-d by (lie employers through their persistent refusal to meet tho mon in conference.