THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 89, 11 May 1909, Page 4

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

WHV AN AWARD WAS MADE.

In tin* hearing uf the recent dairyworkers' dispute it was contended by the employers tliat the present case was one in which the Arbitration Court should refuse to make an award. Keferenee is made to this in a memorandum attached to the award 'actually made. Evidence was called to prove that inflated prices had Won obtained in recent years for dairy products, with the result that price* out of all proportion to real value hail been paid for lauds purchased in recent years for dairying purposes. .Most of the dairy factories belong really to the dairy ■farmers in the districts where J-hey are situated. .As, in view of expert*, it is certain that reduced price* will be obtained in tile future for dairy products, and that the land values must suffer a serious reduction in consequence, it was claimed that the owners of dairy factories should be left with a free hand with regard to wages and other conditions. There would have been nimic reason for this claim jf it had Wen proved that extravagant wage.., paid in Ihe past to the worker* employed in tftcse factories. Nothing of the sort, however, was proved, ami it cannot be said that wages suffered any inimie inflation in sympathy with dairy products and land. If nothing more thau fair wages have Wen paid in tile past, it is not reasonable to ask that factory owners should he free to reduce them merely because a number of farmers have been so unwise as to pay extravagantly high prices for dairying land. .Mr. Pryor, who appeared for the employers, indignantly repudiated the suggestion that his application amounted to saying that the employers desired to be at liberty, if necessary, to sweat the workers in the factories. If, however, tliev have paid only fair wages in the past, and do not des.re to 1 pay < anything less, in the future, why should they object to an award which will not oblige them to do more thau | that? Kmployers in laranaki and Can-1 terbury have recognised the necessity I for regulation by respectively entering] into an industrial agreement. I

"We think," continued the court, ."■that no valid reason has been adduced 1 for refusing to make an award in the present case. Jn view, however, of the present state of the industry, there should not he any alterations in the present conditions, and the rates of wages fixed by the award are those offered by tlie employers, with only one modification, viz., in the case of hands otner than those specifically mentioned. The employers offered ;j.~>s per week as a minimum for those workers, and the court had lixed tlie minimum at fid per week. The rates lixed by the award represent about the average of liie wages now paid in me factories, ami are less than those payable under the industrial agreement in Taranaki. "The employers asked that, if an award were made no limitation should be imposed as to the number of hours to be worked. We arc satisfied that not less than ten hours per day are necessary for the daily work in cheese factories in tlie busy part of the season. The hours are lixed at ten per day by the Taranaki agreement but this i;<»striction, according to the evidence of Mr. Singleton, Government Dairy Instructor, led to hasty work, and deterioration in the quality of the cheese produced. lu order to give. • greater latitude we have lixed the hours at seventy per week. This, we think, ought, to enable the work to lie done without increased expenditure in the shape of payment of overtime. The time required for the daily work in lmtter factories is less than that in cheese factories, hut as some factories manufacture cheese at one time and butter at another, the court decided not to make any distinction between the two classes of factories. The Canterbury award, which does not include cheese factories, lixes the hours of work at fifty-two per week during six mouths of the year? and fortv-fuur during the remainder of the year."