THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1908. THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9173, 24 August 1908, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 1908. THE FARM LABOURERS' DISPUTE.

The fame of the Arbitration Court increases almost daily. Its conspicuous successes in the matter of settling disputes arbitrarily is well-known, but what can be said of a Court that refuses to give a judgment. For some considerable time past the farm abourjrs in Canterbury havo been endeavouring to obtain an award that would regulate the conditions of their work, but the court has declined to do what it was its obvious duty to perforin, viz.. to make an award. The Court exists to facilitate the settlement of disputes, but after protracted proceedings, atrl after an enormous amount of evidence had been taken in regard to the dispute under discussion., the Court has—und it has, we should say, undoubtedly astonithed most people in New Zealand—refused to make any award at all. Truly it is interesting to know upon what ground such a surprising : decision is baaed. Apparently, wo i find it in the following sentences of i the Court's finding (which is, we ( presume, described as a "finding" as a < matter of politeness). "Before such i

extensive interference is justified it i must be clear that substantial grievances exist which can be redressed effectually by the Court, and that the benefits to be obtained by ita interference will more than compensate for any mischief that may result from such interference. The Union failed to prove the existence of any substantial grievances or abuses that would justify the interference of the Court with the whel? farming industry of Canterbury." The language used by the Court in giving ils r -" fusal is certainly most amusing "Before such extensive interference is justified," says the Court. Lsut to what "extensive interference," may we ask, does the Court refer? Surely the extent of interference with the farming industry in Canterbury lies entirely in the Court s hands? The Court can make that interference extensive or not as it consid.rj justifiable, and it can mike tiat int-r.'er-ence affect either employer or employee as may seem gojd t> it in its wisdom, but it cannot either jxstly or logically refuse to make an award. The attitude that the Court has adopted should not be tolerate,! by the people of the Dominion. Again and again the Court has interfered extensively with many trades in this country, but it seems that only employers, whn are rot employers of agricultural employees or farm Labourers, are. to be compelled to work under Arbitration Cojrt awards until further orders. Surely industrial employers will demand the same degree of freedom or, shall we say, a similar privilege, to that enjoyed by agricultural employers? Will the Minister for Labour endorse the action cf the Arbitration Court? Will the Pre- J mier declare that he is in favour of making distinctions amongst employers, that is, compelling some to work under the awards of the Court, whilst granting absolute freedom to others in the matter of arranging conditions between themselves and their employees?