EIGHT BOB A DAY!

Grey River Argus, 16 February 1927, Page 2

EIGHT BOB A DAY!

FARMERS’ QUEST. For Big Wage Cut. FREEZING WORKERS DISPUTE. WELLINGTON, Feb. 15. To-day the Arbitration Court continued its hearing of the dispute in the freezing works industry Mr Sill (Auckland) and Mr Ellis (Christchurch) represented the freezing 'workers. The employers are represented by Mr Sanderson (for the freezing companies), Mr Wilkins (secretary of the South Island Freezing Companies’ Association), and Mr Milne (Chairman of the New Zealand Freezing Companies Association).

The employers to-day combated the workers’ claim that 12/- sho • ' I be substituted for 8/- in the minimum wage clause.

Mr Sanderson, for the employers, asked that the Court

RESTORE THE 1924 RATES and Mr Sanderson also asked the Court whether it wished to hear any evidence regarding the refusal of the men to engage in work or in regard to strikes.

Mr Sill (workers’ representative) asked whether Mr Sanderson were not indicting the I nion in the eyes of the Court in a matter in which it had no jurisdiction ?

Mr Justice Frazer: “We can only deal with the preference clause officially. As* a Court we do not know anything of thf circumstances of occurrences during last year, except what we read in the newspapers, nor do we know whether that can be taken as correct. There is something from each side, and the statements do not tally. We, as a Court, cannot assume any judicial knowledge of that. The definition of a strike implies a cessation of ’work. Mere combination is not a strike. Mi- Sanderson: “I am not particularly stressing that it was a strike, but that it had the same effect as a strike. ’ ’ His Honour: “No doubt, but a strike is a defined term and this Court cannot say that any Union has been guilty of a strike unless the facts have brought the occurrences within the definition of a strike.’’ Mr Sanderson: “I submit that the Court cannot ignore inferences that these men refused engagement.’’ His Honour: “The Court can draw an inference that THERE IS WAR from the newspapers; but I do not think that the Court can take judicial knowledge of what is an industrial offence without confirmation. The offence must be proved. As ordinary members of the community, we know that there were disturbances in November last, but 1 do not know that we can assume, from that knowledge, that the Union lias committed an offence. There is a difference between a number of men taking a wrong course and a Union taking that course. You ask us to assume that some breach of the award took place last November, without any evidence at all. ’ ’ Mr Sanderson: “I wish chiefly to I point out the advisability of | DELETING THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE if not the whole of it, at least those portions affecting the freezing industry and 1 he learners. ’ ’ I His Honour: “You have a right, if a union has assisted in a strike, or encouraged a strike, or done anything in the way of concerted action to defeat the terms of an award, to claim the deletion of the preference clause.’’ Mr Sanderson said that he would call what evidence he had.

Evidence was then called by Mr Sanderson to prove that tallies had been restricted by the workers, so that, while fast men could finish their tallies at 4.15 p.m., slow men could finish the same tally at 5 p.m.

In stating the case for the freezing workers at the opening «f the case, Mr Sill outlined the men’s claims. They

(1.) The deletion of the clause affecting the hours of chamber hands to bring them the same as other workers, bring overtime rates into line with other awards, prevention of the alleged abuse of contract .system by employ -

(2) That the proportion of learners be one to ten, instead of one to three. (3) An increase in the minimum average wage to £3/12/- a week.

As work that was once casual only at the beginning and close of the season, was now casual all through, an increase of ten per cent wages all round was asked. In this application Hie points to be considered would be standard of living and Hie position of the indust rv.

1914 STANDARD NO GOOD TO-DAY. Mr Sill said that the 1914 standard of 1 living could not be adopted to-day; it should be on standards of to-day, not those of 13 years ago. Among other arguments he said the period of the year in which workers were employed had decreased about half, owing to the increase in the number of works, and over-capitalisation. The main causes of the difficulties had been created by the management and could be controlled by it. The position was not so bad as generally assumed. Capital invested including bank overdrafts and other loan moneys grew from £1,191,511 on 1914, to £4,821,513 in 1924, but the increase did not give the increased output. Mr Sill further suggested the increase of management and office ch arg es for 43 companies instead of 28 in 1914. expenses of buying staffs in com petition, the payment of excessive prices for stock, allowance for rebates and payment of royalties to secure stock, were further causes for the position of the companies to-day. WHAT MEN EARN. In evidence of various witnesses, the following wages were stated to have been received: Labourers £4/5/5, £3 10/4, £3/18/7; freezing workers, £3 16/10, £3/11/7; slaughtermen £5/12/-, £5/6/2, £5/9/2, £5/4/7; slaughterhouse assistants £3/11/6 and £3/18/10; fellmongers £3/17/1. IRREGULAR HOURS. F. C. Ellis, giving evidence from the returns of the freezing companies regarding the hours of chamber hands, said that not one man in a. hundred understood tin* clause as it. stood, and he urged that more hours be worked ( between 8 and 5. At present, men sometimes started at midnight or 2 a.m., and

had so many hours at ordinary rates, so many at ordinary time plus 6d, so many at time and a quarter, so many at time and a half, and so many at double time. It was hard for anyone to understand the exact wording of the clause which contained so many “except where otherwise provided’’ stipulations. The number of accidents in freezing works was of higher percentage than in other occupations.

FARMERS’ UNION HEAD GIVES EVIDENCE.

Evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union was then given by W. J. Polson, President of that body. He said: Farmers regard the present cost of freezing as too high, and are of opinion that unless some relief is obtained from these and other high costs, which are throttling our industry, disaster is ahead of us. The position in New Zealand this winter will be worse than anything since the days of the Atkinson Government. I wish to point out to the Court that we.are the only people who cannot pass these charges on, and that with the gradual fall in prices of primary products, a fall which economists agree is a natural corollarv to (he return to gold standard, it is impossible for us to develop primary industries in this country unless we get costs of production down.’’

Witness contended that land values were not wholly responsible for the unsatisfactory position of the, former, but he said the “high costs including labour costs due to the increased cost of living restrictions, imposed on employers by this Court, and the slackening of effort during the recognised hours of Labour by the workmen generally are the chief causes. ’ ’ Continuing, Mr Polson said: “I have endeavoured to obtain the balance sheets of a number of farmers for confidential use of this court. Unfortunately it is only those FARMERS WITH CONSIDERABLE BALANCE OF ASSESS over liabilities who can be induced to offer their balance sheets for scrutiny. The balance sheets which I wish to present, therefore, show a position which is better than the average.. I have referred to individuals by numbers and will be glad to hand the key to the Court if it requires it. It is unfortunate that the great bulk of the producers object to having their embarrassments dragged into light. 1 would further point, out to the Court that small farmers who largely belong to the organisation I represent have been in many cases working long hours, depriving themselves of the amenities of civilised life, which every worker nowadays regards as part of his birthright, and that nothing appears in their balance sheets to represent this item. The worker receives his wage at regular intervals. The farmer’s wage depends upon next season’s markets which places him at a double disadvantage. In a period of declining prices the lag in cost reductions is invariably twelve months and generally two years behind. The small farmer whose land is assessed for land tax at less than £2900 an<l who constitutes two thirds of the farming class is worst hit because his labour creates a considerable proportion of the value of his product when compared with his capital. Farmers of this ulass who do not live with the great ( i st frugality and practice the greatest economy, cannot hope to survive these* conditions. Why should these handicaps not be shared by others! If such is the position, it is evident that the only chance, not only for the farmer, but the country, is to increase production, and get the costs of production down. We say as producers Hint the responsibility is upon this Court of seeing that the cost of production is reduced. The cost of living is based on index values over which the farmer is the. only section of the community without any control on the continual interference of the Court, and 1 speak with respect. In order to maintain the standard which I contend is a false standard, and has had the effect of retarding a return to sounder conditions. As an Australian authority recently put it, we are engaged in a “Futile and endless travelling of the vicious circle: “I do not wish to reduce the workers’ standard of comfort, but 1 am satisfied that a reduced cost of liv- 1 ing is necessary. I have been able to make some investigation in such countries as Denmark and Holland, where the basis of living is vastly lower than in New Zealand, but where the stand ard of comfort is undoubtedly as high, if not higher. The reason is that production costs are low. “In conclusion 1 would urge upon the court, its enormous responsibility in this matter. Freezing costs must be reduced; the price of service is dictated by the largest works in New Zealand. At the present time all the works are running at a loss with the i-esult. that they arc being closed down by process of exhaustion. These works perform a distinct service to the producers in some cases, and their withdrawal is in those districts a retrograde step from the, point of view of efficient service, local observation and supervision, and prevention of loss through long railway journeys for J such as lambs. A monopoly for some large works is rapidly being created in which the labour conditions play a considerable part. The farmers’ protection against unfair labour demands is the smaller work. The freezing companes are in a different position to the farmers. They are in a position to pass their charges on, similarly they would be in a posit-ion to pass on any reduction. ’ ’