CRITICS OF COURT

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 3, 25 March 1927, Page 9

CRITICS OF COURT

“Don’t Read Intelligently”

ARBITRATION JUDGE’S REMARK

“ People who criticise the court don’t even take the trouble to read intelligently the statements made by the court, said Mr. Justice Frazer, in the arbitration court, during the hearing of a claim concerning the wages of crutchers. Mr. A. Cook,' general secretary of the N.Z. Workers’ Union, made some acrid comment on what he termed the “ squealing of the large sheepfarmers.”

CHRISTCHURCH, Thursday. “These large sheepfarmers; there is more squealing coming from them to-day than from any other section of employers in the community. They gambled and Now the only thing they can see is to cut the workers* wages down to get them out of that mess. If a man goes on a racecourse and loses his money he doesn’t squeal, and ask someone else to help him. If he’s a sport he takes his loss and says nothing about It. These sheepfarmers gambled and now they expect their workers to help them out of the mess they’re in.”

So said Mr. A. Cook, general secretary of the New Zealand Workers’ Union in making application in the Arbitration Court, on behalf of the Canterbury Shearers’ and Shed Hands’ Union for increased wages. A Brisk Exchange. “It has been remarked by a prominent member of the Farmers’

Union,” said Mr. Cook later, “that the continual interference of the Arbitration Court has had the effect of retarding a return to sounder conditions in the farming industry.” “You had better not make any reference to the Arbitration Court,” said Mr. Justice Frazer. " Some people who critiMR. JUSTICE FRAZER. cise the court don’t even take the trouble to read intelligently statements made by the court.” “I wish to infer,” said Mr. Cook, “that if this gentleman (referring to Mr. J. D. Hall, advocate for the employers) would pay as much attention to an up-to-date system of marketing produce as he does to the lowering of the workers’ wages, a return to sounder conditions would be brought about more speedily.” The claim concerned wages for crutching. The employers opposed this class of work coming under the award, holding that it was part of the general routine of the farm. Decision was reserved.