THE MILK VENDORS' DISPUTE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 918, 10 September 1910, Page 12

THE MILK VENDORS' DISPUTE.

'./■..-;:■:'.../;-'» ■ L —l ; '-v- ; . : V : PROTECTING THE ROUND. : AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. [By Telograpu.-Special'Correspondent.) .- •. Auckland, September 9. '/ "That is an outrageous and'monv stroiis document..:' A. disgrace;.;to our democracy,''' were the emphatic terms in which Mr.: E. Long denounced,; at the Conciliation Court yesterday morn-, ing, in the course'of the hearing of the milk' vendors'; dispute,: an agreement which employees have been required to' sign upon entering - the employment of : milk-vending 'firms .in the city../. : .'.-■ The. agreement:referred to, recognised ; as legally, binding, precludes an employee, without writt-en-odnsent after the': ter- ; mination of, his service from deliver? ing' milk directly or indirectly on. his : own behalf Or on behalf; of any; other person 'within a /radiusi of four miles from the post office/fora.-periodof ;tw<J: years.'/ V//-. '":. , ; '/:■'■■'. ■ '•:' ■■/■'■/■l- . There■ ensued a/disenssionras;to men signing: away their liberty ence, aha ~self-respect by ; such"an'- agreement, and on,the; other side the.'neces--sity.;;of the. employers';.to, enforce'.; an agreementi to prevent ruination of biisi-' ness.;/. ■ :... .'.;■■-."' ; .■-./■: : i-'"'':-<;.'': '■.<■■;

. -The men'.'pointed out i that ."by being' .bound down in the 'manner suggested they'.could not' work/for', themselves or, any other "firm.'on: the round. They helped .to increase business 'on "a. round,''and though'.' they rec'eiveol'commission, .'they would .receive, no/consideration., if the business:;, was. sold.i; /In : that;case, too, 'the-men argued, l.'a, man would be transferred in the samo way;, as carts'and horses.;. : ";:*.;■■•.■ Mr. Ambury, a prominent employer, acknowledged _ that 'the/ old .agreement,' which was thirty'years/old,; was.ihiqui-. tous,. but. the' employers; were. willing to adopt a modified'agreement,' if. the employers-were:.willing.;'">. H they, could" not have *; an agreement. with .--the-' men it simply ' meant ruin/ to a" lot/ of em- : ployers. OhlyVby. holding their bust' ness/together coi2d:they sneceed.'■ So far ■:>V the * radius" of; prohibition: y was; concerned, ;>thei /employers '/wouldy bs; willing;to 'merely : protect.-, the';round .or founds iri .which the employee had; been ■ engaged./-;;: Mr./ -also/; stato! thati_a j large, sum of; money /had/ been expended;!■ in: buildings;' and.- ; w>' putting; milk ! ' and: products r on the iiarkei/ in u wholesome -/'form: V.\;His\; firm- had -spent £10,000,; in buildings .and, plant "during •■ the last/ four years i in; the interests? o| the/public and men, the former getting, and : the /latter/'increased, wages.; '/The. company did; not' benefit: ; by. a single, cent/.through"'." tha.' expenditure':"' "/;•'/'.v''/;/.;',^:'"/''i/ : ;'•'' Mr. Long - (Labour.: representative) 4 ;You ; are;a'philanthropist; ■/";;;-/"'•.'■ V/* :-■; ■Mr. : Ambury": :'Yes, 1 I. am'S'T.l ; have done' some/things that L/n'eed not-riava idonoj and could have;put the;mbhoy/hV my pocket;-;:V :; /</ : : '/;::' : //"-'-'i;"'-'/;/ ':■ /Mr. Long': The public-demand/ date' conditions in' regard to ;;their'food-' stuffs.'' "/k/ '/,,-::-■; "^..- _ f s.;;;, -- .*,.. -. ->-~".";. ';• '^?' >;; _";/" public demahd.w^;;.;;K ; ; ;':/;,>/;;;'- : ;^/> : ;;>': . .'After- further/.discussion;,it;\-',was ')'&&■ dided to adjoufh the'further■rhearmg'ol! the : dispute, till "the,.26th ■;instant. '%•'■■>■