FARMERS AND ARBITRATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 207, 22 August 1908, Page 2

FARMERS AND ARBITRATION.

THE FARM LABORERS' DISPUTE. COURT DECLINES TO HAKE AN AWARD. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christchurch, Last Night.' The decision of the Arbitration Court in the farm laborers' industrial,dispute was filed this morning. After reviewing I lie circumstances under wdiicJi the lispule came before tho Court, and setting out the demands of the union, the Court proceeds to give reasons why an award regulating the work of ploughmen and general hands, harvest hands, and day laborers is impracticable. The rates of wages are then discussed, with passing reference to food and accommodation, and the Court then intimates:—"lt appears to us, therefore, that, dealing with farm laborers generally, the union lias failed to prove the existence of any substantial grievance or abuse that would justify the interference of the Court with the whole farming industry of Canterbury." After discussing the question of hours, the judgment states: "It appears to us to be quite impracticable to fix any definite hours for the daily work of a general farm hand without altering materially the system under which farming is carried on at the present time." Further matters are dealt with, and then the Court goes on to say: "The conclusion we have conic to on the whole matter is that it is not practicable to make an award fixing tho hours of work and wages for general farm hands without altering seriously the conditions under which farming is now carried on. If a strong ease had

been made out for interference tiie Court might have felt compelled to make an award on the subject and to at-

tempt to regulate the hours of work and wages of general farm hands. Sncli a case, however, has not been made out, and the Court is thus relieved from he necessity of making the perilous attempt to regulate by award the whole farming industry of the Dominion." Tlie following are the recommendations which the Court makes to atl farmers in tho industrial district:—"(l) That all day laborers who receive on'y a money payment for their scrvic-s shall be paid not less than 7s per day; (2) that when general farm hands are employed at harvesting, the bonus t o be paid to them shall be such a sum as will make their wages for the time they are actually engaged in harvest work not less than 50s per week; (3) that whenever it is reasonably practicable each farm worker shall be: allowed a half-holiday on one day of the week | if he desires it; (-1) that each regular I fai'iu wnrl.-nv ol.nll l>n 011nv.,.,1 <, I Innd

one week's holiday in the year on full | pay; (5) Hint when general farm bunds have to milk cows twice a day they shall lie allowed an interval for rest during the day in addition to the ordinary dinner hour, except, of course, at the busy season of the year." Mr. McCullough does not concur in this judgment. He is strongly of opinion that grounds exist which justify aud render necessary the interference of the Oourl, and that it is possible 'o make a workable awai/l on the subject. Speaking to a reporter, he expressed himself thus: "I hope that those who have it in their power to prevent a - ii-

currenec of what I conceive to be a miscarriage of justice will use that power to obviate and remove a disability that can only be regarded by the workers as a hindrance to their aspirations and to their future prosperity." In reply to a question from the reporter, Mr. McCullough said Hint owing to his official position he must refrain from saying a good many things to the farmers' workers that he would otherwise have said. He would, however, ex press the hope that they would not be discouraged by this temporary rebuff,' but that they would rather see in it an additional reason for more complete organisation, so that the victories of the' future would wipe out all memory of the defeats of the past.