WAGES OF FRAZER WORKERS

Hokitika Guardian, 4 February 1927, Page 4

WAGES OF FRAZER WORKERS

FARMERS’ POSITJUN. CANNOT APPEAR. AS THIRD PARTY. WELLINGTON, Fel). 2. At a meeting of the Dominion Executive of the Formers’ Union, the president. Mr \\ . J. Poison, spoke sit length on the position created by the inability of the union legally to appear before the Arbitration Court, although farmers were likely to be vitally affected by increases of wages of freezing workers, fie said be had gone to a great deal of trouble to accumulate information as to the position of the union, and he now found that they could not he attached as a third party. The law did not allow them to shite their case before the Court and they could only give evidence with the consent of the freezing companies, flo had endeavoured to conic to an arrangement with the freezing companies, but Mr Milne, who was conducting their case had declined to do more than allow the union to call one or two witnesses to state their ease as concisely as possible. That would he unsatisfactory from the farmers’ point of view. He had asked for further concessions from the companies to enable the union to state their case, and very great pressure had- been brought. to hear upon (lie companies from a most influential quarter. As a result Mr Milne Ivid informed him by telephone that ho would agree to the union taking part in the proceedings.

Mr Poison said hr asked for that in writing, hut had had no communication from Mr Milne up till his arrival in Wellington, lie ln'id then "alhored from conversation with Mr Milne that I lie was morn anxious to have industrial peace, irrespective of wind wages were paid, than to protect the producers from anv increases in charges that might he made, lie was unable to get a clear statement to whether the companies would allow the union to lake part.. He then saw Messrs Sanderson and Daniels. and found ilia* dermife (1... influential demands for assistance to the Farmers’ 1 nion tin* position had not been altered. Ihe union could only give evidence under the direction of the gentleman who was in charge of the case far the freezing companies. _ That was the position at present. It was unsatisfactory, because it. did not give the union the freedom of action it should have in such .1 big question. Tire union was limited to a statement to the Court, which would weaken its case.

I Mr Poison suggested Unit, n strong recommendation should he made to the floverninent for an amendment of the law to enable the body which actually paid for the inerases made by the Court to have some say (Hear, Hoar). He had relied on a clause in the amending Act which provided tnnt in any proceedings bolore the t ourt relating to any industry or organisation which was connected with the industry in the loc/iilty to which the proceedings related, that organisation .should ho entitled to be heard if it was considered it was likely lo he affected in any way. He was informed, however, tluit that did mil cover the union, ihonsh he felt sure tint the legislature had cases such as theirs in mind. The whole question was one of the cost of living, and should be work-

cd out impartially. It did seem reasonably that the farmer, who had so much on his shoulders, should have a proper opportunity to discuss such a matter before the Court. Similar cases would occur again, and they would he powerless if they secured an amendment of the law. How could the Court understand their position uirless they were able to state how vitally they were affected by awards? After discussion it was resolved, “That the urgent attention of the Government. he drawn to the fact that, section 126 of the Arbitration Act, 1025, providing for the attachment of third parties does not meet the cc.se, inasmuch as it does not allow the producers. who are the most vitally interested, to be attached as third parties in connection with the freezing dispute, and that an amendment he asked for next, session as a matter of urgency.”