SHUT OUT

Wairarapa Age, 3 February 1927, Page 5

SHUT OUT

FARMERS AND THE FREEZING AWARD.

PRODUCERS WISH TO STATE THEIR CASE.

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW DEMANDED.

WELLINGTON, February 2. At a meeting of the Dominion Executive of the Farmers’ Union, the President (Mr. W. J. Polson) sjpke at length on the position created by the inability of the union to appear legally before the Arbitration Court, although farmers were likely to be vitally affected by increases in wages of freezing workers. Mr. Polson said he had gone to a great deal of trouble to accumulate information as to the position of the union, and he now found that they could not oe attached as a third party. The law did not allow them to state their case before the Court, and they could only give evidence with the consent of the freezing companies. Mr. Polson said he had endeavoured to come to an arrangement with the freezing companies, but Mr. Milne, who was conducting their case; had declined to do more than allow the union to call one or two witnesses to state their case as concisely as possible. That would be unsatisfactory from the farm- . -ers’ point of view. He had asked for ♦ further concessions from the companies to enable the union to state its case, and very great pressure had been brought to bear upon the companies from the most influential quarter. As a result, Mr. Milne had informed him "by telephone that he would agree to the union taking part jn the proceedings, INDUSTRIAL PEACE. Mr. Polson said ho asked for that in writing, but had had no communication from Mr. Milne up till his arrival in 'Wellington. He had then gathered from a conversation with Mr. Milna that he was more anxious to have industrial peace, irrespective of what wages were paid, than to jvrotcct the producers from any increases in charges that might be made. He was unable to get a clear statement as to whether tne companies would allow the union to take part. He then saw Mr. Sanderson and Mt. Daniell and found that despite influential demands for assistance to the Farmers’ Union, the position had yjot been altered. The union could only ’•give evidence under the direction of the gentleman who was in charge of the case for the freezing companies. That was the position at present. It was unsatisfactory, because it did not give the union the freedom of action it should have in such a big question. The union was limited to a statement to the court, which would weaken its case.

Mr. Polson suggested that a strong recommendation should be made to the Government for an amendment of the law to enable * a body which actually paid for the increases made by the Court to have some say. (Hear, hear.} AN INEFFECTIVE CLAUSE.

He had relied on a clause in an Amending Act which provided that in any proceedings before the Court relating to any industry or organisation which was connected with the industry in the locality to which the proceedings related, that organisation should be entitled to be heard if it was considered it was likely to be affected in any way. He was informed, however, that that did not cover the union, though he f sure that the Legislature had eases such as theirs in mind. The whole question was one of the cost of living, and should be worked out impartially. It did seem reasonable that the fare. ■ er, who had so much on his shoulue.s. should have a proper opportunity Ltj discuss tnch a matter before the Court. Similar cases would occur again, and they would be powerless unless they secured an amendment of the law. How could the Court understand their position unless they were able to state how vitally they were affected by awards: After discussion, it was resolved:— “That the urgent attention of the Government be drawn to the fact that Section 126 of the Arbitration Act of 1925 providing for the attachment of third parties, does not meet the case, inasmuch as it does not allow the producers, who are most vitally interested, to be attached as third parties in connection with the freezing dispute, and that an amendment be asked for next session as a matter of Urgency.”—(P.A.)