INTERESTING SHEARERS CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10155, 3 February 1911, Page 5

INTERESTING SHEARERS CASE.

CLAIM AGAINST A STATIONHOLDER. V QUESTION OF WET SHEEP. . v A somewhat interesting case, affect-. * ing the relations between sheep owners and shearers, was heard in the Magistrate's Court at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., when William Stewart, shearer of Master- , ton. claimed from Charles Cameron, runholder, a sum of £36 18s lid, damages and amount alleged to be owing for shearing. Mr G. K. Cuiien appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr H. C. Robinson for the defoudant. , The .statement of claim set out that on or about November I3th last, the defendant, by his agent, George Cox, , manager of the station at Flat Point, ■ engaged the plaintiff to work as a shearer, and that the latter agreed to shear, and was entitled to continue in defendant's employ until the shearing at that shed was finished for the season j that the plaintiff, while acting as representative of the shearers in the shed, under clause 9 o* the shearers' award, had occasion.to dis- . cuss a grievance of the defendant with the latter, as an - outcome of which plaintiff was dismissed without notice on November 20th,. twenty-one days ■>■ before.the shed had been "cut out" and while there were still 10,540 sheep. to be shorn, of which plaintiff claimed that he would have shorn 1756; that - the determination of v plaintiff's Vser- ' '•; vice resulted in a direct loss to him -*-.-■. of £22 4s 6dj that shearing had ad- - vanced so far when he was dismissed that lie was unable to secure, another ; shed: wherefore he claimed to recover special damages as follows : Wages for shearing 1758 sheep at £1 per hundred, £l7 10s; board expenses - for twenty-one days at ,4s 6d per day, £4 14s 6d; general damages,'':■.£§? amount due for, sheep shorn, £9 14» : ,. sd; making a total of £36 18s lld v /

Defendant admitted the claim for £9 14s 5d for sheep shorn. . ; Gomisel for plaintiff stated that ,' the shearers could elect a' representative to confer with the manager in ' the case of . disputes, v On November 20th, there was a rainfall, and the sheep got xyet. afew 'lays Stewart asked Cox,, the manager,, if he would accept a vote of the shear- \ ers.if the shnep were dry or wet. Only .'iie'slieanv. who voted, agreed to go, -= ; c ■'iitt with the shearing. Mr (panieron, owner -'of Hie sheep, came ch the scene and said that thero had been too much Hesitation. To this '. Stewart, not C . knowing Mr Cameron,, repKed that he; , was dealing with the manager,. Some- y time after Stewart was asked to apologise to Mr;Cameron; but,he:said that.--;:'"'' there was nothing to apologise for. The manager then handed Stewart his/stating that he was disniissed. \ v William Tjibinas Stewart y plaintiff . in the case, stated that, being engaged ;'; by Mr Cox, he,started to work under his 1 directions op >Novemberl4th,.pontinuing' till November 30th, All his y directions were from Cox. » The shearers' representative was a Maori when, plaintiff first went'to. the station; and ; on; Mon^ayT resigned because" -"'''"'of .certain '■.-■■■ trivial disputes betweeii, tjie men 'and Mr Cos."" The majority of the shearers ; elected plaintiff as representative, and ■ Mr Cox was duly inotified, expressing/ himselfTas satisfied with the change. Rain fell on Sunday night, : N6vember <27th. !" On'; Monday,; it did; not; rsad^.,^. ;;J&%>Jwing4k3^ vivmd nor sun;.the- nb'cTlance r 'to gePdryr because, the grass jvaayery i };; long. On Tuesday, at midday,'witness ' was to try the sheep. A vote of the shearers was taken- and all of them decided that i the sheep were too wet to shear.-,. As a trial, two sheep each wereshprn. The men'were again asked to shear on Wednesday morning. Two sheep each were again shorn, and the ; shearers were still of the opinion Uhat". the sheep were too wet to shear. Wit nessnotified Mr Cox, who agreed, and' turned the sheep but. The same thing again occurred at midday: diay,'when only one shearer was of the opinion that the sheep were dry v enough. The one whb voted that the sheep were dry enough afterwards said tlia*, they were wet; but lie wius prepared to go on. After the v-)te, . witnesi told Mr Cox the result ottho vote, and he appeared to aceapt it. Mr Cox asked witness to tell bin; which way the men voted. While talking to Mr Cox, M/Cameron caine ;ip. \ anLsaid: f'Tliis game iws^ .r.y. ;ico ; :;']■ far.''. Witness then'saii Jo;-Af!-"Carr!- : ; : •ercp, v."I am notrdeaiing:'vifch;ypo.i; V am dealing with Mr Cox, ' At t!?is u Mr Ciineron walked aw>. At-tiint . . tiu!!! witness did not know m(io ivlr Caneron.was. Mr Cox ;iUY sn.iJ that the ».iine had gone too far, an I w.t- '.;:' ness suited that;'it was Not Ins fault, because it was no better for the shearers lc- hare the sheep tum<U cutt than it was for them. Mr Cox wanted the: : men to try the sheep and get their separate opinion. He left it to witness to explain to the men that he was not satisfied with the voting. He told the mon that he did not think it - was - necessary to try the sheep again. ness told Mr Cox his opinion, which . was that the sheep were too wet to shear."* The same afternoon witness met Mr Cameron in a'paddock. The latter said he wanted to speak to witness in regard to what he said to him in the morning. Witness said that de did'riot consider that-'he'.-had - been in any way uncivil. Mr Cameron said it" was' s not what he said, .but the way he had said .it that he objected to. After further discussipn, Mr Cameron ; said that as he had not been civil he ' had better get his cheque. Witness said he would take his dismissaWrom Mr Cox, and then walked away. In the evening witness met Mr Cox, who said Mr Cameron had given him instructions to tell to apologise or. in the alternative take his . cheque. Witness said he did not consider his remarks required withdrawing. The cheque was handed to witness, who asked if he was to i consider himself dismissed, and Mr Cox answered in the affirmative. Witness - knew of cases when men who had shorn -wetsheep had contracted serious diseases. Witness had shorn 929 sheep, being a sixth of the sheep shorn, and he considered he would shear a sixth of the rest of the sheep, which would amount to 1756, the payment for which would be £l7 10s. Witness had ' always been employed under theimpression that he was to go . right through the shed. By Mr Robinson: The paddock in which the sheep were kept was covered with long grass. Witness did not tell Mr Cameron to. mind, his own business", . nor did;he say he was dealing with the When he met Sjr Cameron he> siirfmsied that lie was the owner of the sl;ati6n. Mr Cox told witness that Mr Cameron was the Owner when the

former told him that Mr Cameron wanted him to' withdraw his remark. Witness did not consider Mr Cameron had a right to interfere in the contract between Mr Cox and witness. Frederick Percy Welch, land and labour agent, Masterton, stated that the custom was for shearers engaged to cut a shed right out. A shearer coming on after the shearing started was not hound to stay on all the season; but it was the custom for the employer to he bound to keep a shearer the whole season if he found the shearing satisfactory. ' / Duncan McGregor, farmer, Masterton, stated that the usual understanding was that an employer engaged his men for the whole of the shearing season. Prior to the award the employers had difficulty with the men. The custom was that an agreement should be binding upon both sides. j B'v Mr Robinson: Witness would ! consider that if he engaged a man for shearing, he engaged him for the season. . Archibald Mcintosh, shearer, deposed that he had been shearing for thirty-five years. If a shearer was taken on after shearing commenced, he was bound to go through the shed. If he gave satisfaction, he was entitled to remain in the shed until it was "cut out."

Manga Kenata stated that he. was a sliearer employed at Flat Point. Stewart had told him how to vote, but did not influence, him in his vote. Me considered that the sheep were wet. When Cameron came up, he said to Stewart, "This game has gone too far.'*" Stewart replied,. "I beg your pardon." and Cameron repeated his statement. Stewart said, "I'm not dealing with you —I'm dealing with Mr Cox." .Cameron then walked awav. ■

John Georgeson, agent for the Labour Department in Masterton, gave evidence as to the plaintiff and the defendant calling on him'in regard to the dispute. , Thomas. Haeta, a native sliearer, gave evidence .as to the vote being taken concerning the sheep. He had voted that the sheep were wet. Monana W'aaka and Thomas Haeta also gave evidence. For the defence, Mr Robinson said he proposed', to prove that the sheep were dry when. the shearers refused to shear them. He would also prove that Stewart spoke impertinently to Mr Cameron.' . "

diaries A. Cameron, owner of Flht Point Station, deposed that he always went out to his station when shearing was on. /When he was not at the station, Cox was manager, but when lie was there he managed everything himself. He engaged nearly all the shearers himself. When Stewart told Cox that the sheep were wet, the latter said they could not be. Witness, who was within speaking distance, said it was impossible that the sheep were ■ wet, and that the "wet sheep business was going .too far." Stewart turned .round and told witness to mind his own business, saying that he Avas dealing with Mr Cox. Stewart repeated'later, that he. would take instructions only from Mr Cox. Witness told Stewart that he would have to withdraw what die had said and"recognise him. He instructed Cox to see Stewart. Witness.tried-the sheep, and they were all dry. y .. V . .John Harding Taitham, owner of Homewop.d station, adjourning Flat Point ■, deposed that on Tuesday, when the men '•refused 'to shear .at Flat Point, lapibs and sheep wei;e shorn on adjoining/ 'Witness'.'sheep were. heaV|er in the .wool, than, -Mr Cameron's. '-".'•' . •-•

August? : Nitz» owner of another adjoining station, gavev.corroborative evidence, ~ : ''v f '.'. ; ;'- ' f:;>;V;';' ■%['■' ''[■; .'.;' . Willie Tbhiv' %/shearer..' stated that; he commenced shearing sheep-on the Tuesday afternoon, when the sheep were quite dry. George Cox, manager of 'tflat Point, station, stated that Mr Cameron had full charge when lie was on the station. When the: shearing started Mr Cameron was in charge. All the fleeces tried on Wednesday were perfectly dry.

Arthur Arlidge and John Ross, who are employed p.n Flat. Point',- also testified that the sheep were dry. After hearing counsel, His Worship stated that the failure of Stewart tp shear the sheep, and the insulting remarks to his master, were quite sufficient to justify his dismissal. : .The plaintiff would be non-suited, with Court costs'lßs, witnesses' expenses £9 10s, and solicitor's fee £1 ls. :