SUTTER AND CHEESE FACTORY WORKERS' DISPUTE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9081, 22 February 1908, Page 2

SUTTER AND CHEESE FACTORY WORKERS' DISPUTE.

* The Conciliation Boat'i a sitting in commotion with the above at <• Dannevirke on Wednesday. None of the employers attended, and after a short consultation among themselves the members of the Board adjourned to Napier. They decided to visit a number of the Dannevirke factories, however, and made a beginning by going over the Eclipse factory-under the guidance fof the manager, Mr McDonald. The Umutaoroa factory was visited yesterday afternoon, and Norsewood was visited this morning. When spoken to by a Dannevirke Advocate representative yesterday "afternoon, the chairman of the Board (Mr P. J. O’Regan) said that so far the Board had seen practically nothing to criticise in the factories, but very much to praise. The cheese factories of the-Wairarapa were a credit to all concerned, and though the Board had so far visit®! but one butter factory (the Eclipse), he couli safely say that if one was typical there was nothing to be desired as far as cleanliness and accommodation were concerned. He saw no reason whatever why a friendly .conference should not result in a settlement of whatever points were in dispute, as had been done in the case ®f the shearers and Palmerston North painters. The Board had ' ashbrfeained that the conference already held had failed because the employers had insisted on the classification of factories, to which the union would not argee. None of the other points had been discussed at all. This was the sole reason why the ®mployers refused to confer further. ;»nd he could Sonly say that their action was regrettable. However, the Board would give every facility for."a settlement, but if their offices were not accepted they would compel the attendance of sufficient evidenoe to enable them to frame -reasonable recommendations. Asked regarding the Board’s powers, Mr O’Regan said that the Board could do nothing by compulsion except subpoena witnesses. Their function was either to bring the parties to argeement, or, failing that, to file recommendations for a settlement. Their recommendations could be taken to the Court by any one employer, or by the union, if a majority so decided. - -Questioned as to the reason of the employers’ action in refusing to confer, Mr O’Regan said that he knew the real reason, though it was not the ostensible reason. Mr Justice Sim had ruled that if the empowers took the Board’s recommendations to the Court, the onus lay on them to show that the recommendations were not fair and reasonablein other words, that the responsibility of beginning is on|the party making the aid of the Court. That was a perfectly fair procedure, and one in strict accordance with Jestablished procedure, but had caused dissatisfaction, and someone had made himself responsible for the opinion that it would not apply unless the employers were parties before the Board. The attitude of the employers in the present case was, therefore, a species of passive resistance to the ruling of Mr Justice Sim.