SHEARING DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 909, 31 August 1910, Page 7

SHEARING DISPUTE.

REFERRED TO A SPECIAL TRIBUNAL. STATEMENT BY THE HON. J. A. MILLAft. In the Houso of Itepresentatives yesterday Mr. T. E. Taylor. iI.P. ..for Christchurch North, asked the Hon. J. A. Millar, Minister for Labour, whether he knew that the Shearers' Federation was being put to a very great deal oi trouble and expense .in connection with the dispute with tho Sheep-owners' Federation over the ratfs of pay for. shearing. Apparently, ho said, the sheep-owners had no other intention but to irritate and annoy tho shearors. The men had already been cited to appear before two conciliation councils. They had been dragged, from the South Island to Masterton and Palmorston North to hear irom the employers that they would not submit tno dispute to conciliation. Now they wore to bo.called upon to appear before three other councils to bear the samo answer. It c<ist tbo Dominion <£50 ior each of these farcical meetings. With the exception of the Christchurch dispute, it appeared that tho owners wore determined to irritate tho shearers as much as possible. The workers wer<s anxious to have the dispute settled, but if it continued it would not be' the men's fault if shearing operations were affected, and there was a los 3 to tho country ot' some thousands 'of pounds. Ho thought tho Minister should look into the matter.

The Hon. J. A. Millar said that he had no knowledgo of the complaint. Tho reason for the holding of the meetings of the Conciliation Commissioners was that tho dispute had been lodged in each district. According to tho Act, tho dispute had to bo dealt with by the Conciliation Commissioner for each district affected. There was no method by which one hearing could be taken for the wholo Dominion. Ho had now received a request signed by the secretary of the Shearers' Union and the secretary of the' Sheepowners' Federation for three commissioners to sit at Christchurch to go into tho whole matter. These commissioners would make a recommendation to the Arbitration Court for a main award or a colonial award. Mr. T. E. Taylor: Do they mention a colonial award ?' Mr. Millar: It means that. They will meet on tho 13th. Continuing his remarks, Mr. Millar said that he presumod that tho delay of tho hearing of the dispute in" the various districts was probably with tho .object of holding over this hearing until tho three commissioners had, sat., He .hoped . that they would give a'satisfactory decision. ' Mr.. Taylor: I am glad to havo your reply, and I hope'the incident will illustrate again the need for provision for tho making of colonial awards. Mr. Davey asked if there was any truth in tho telegraphic statement in that day's Dominion to the effect that represents tives of both parties to tho dispute had signed an undertaking to abide by the award of tho Court in the matter. Mr. Taylor: I think that applies only to the Canterbury dispute. Mr. Millar said that ha had bten asked to appoint the three commissioners, which he might say was a most unusual cedurc, but somn speciul sDeps hud to be taken. Whatever was agreed on by tho commissioners would bo adopted. Mr. Masseylt will W' in tho nature of a colonial award. . Mr. Millar: Yes.