FARM LABORERS’ DISPUTE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2226, 25 June 1908, Page 3

FARM LABORERS’ DISPUTE

RECOMMENDATIONS OF CONCILIATION BOARD.

[Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, June 24. The recommendations of the Board of Conciliation in the big Canterbury farm laborers’ dispute were madepublic to-night. Tho preliminary report stated that the Board was of opinion that tho evidence*taken revealed an- absence of uniformity in tho return that was now being made by capital to labor in the country agricultural industry. That was shown in varying degrees in the hours worked and the conditions under which the work was being done, and the wages paid; whilst the desirability of regulating the hours was urged by tlio Union, less objection was taken to .the irregularities of time than to wages and conditions, a- general disposition boing shown to adopt this to tho general requirements of circumstances. Respecting the principal items under the head of conditions of ‘board and lodgings, the employers themselves supplied conclusive} evidence of the divergent views held as to the value of the return that justice demanded should be made to labor under the heading of board and lodging {evidence being given by numerous employers showing that the cost of that item was any sum. from 7s to 16s per week. The effect of the erratic system ,or want of system, regarding wages was that the farmer who did not pay more than 20s was working his farm at a cost of 50 per cent, less for labor than the farmer who was paying 30s. Consideration of such irregularities naturally prompted the question why, if some farmers could afford to pay the higher rates, should not all? Tho evidence showed that tho term board and lodging in connection with farm lifo convoyed a vory different, meaning from what was generally understood by that to Cm. Tho evidence also disclosed that in- a great.many cases the quarters 'allotted to the workers left a great deal to bo desired as to space, convenience, and general comfort. After going into the whole case as directed by the Court, the Board considered that the proposed working rules attached to the report would be a fair and reasonable settlement of the disDute. The recommendations, summarised, are as follows:—Hours of work for ploughmen 6 a.m. to 8 p.m., not more than eight -hours in light chains, except at harvest time, when 10 hours may bo worked; an hour to be allowed for breakfast and one hour for dinner. Ploughman is defined as a man wholly or partially engaged to work with and attend to horses. Hours of work of day laborers and general farm hands not to exceed eight per day, exclusive of one hour for dinner jliours for harvest work not to exceed ten per day, exclusive of two. hours for meals. Wages of ploughmen’ 24s per week, with an additional 2s for each horse over four. Smart ploughing with six horses 30s per week. Wages to be in addition to board and lodging. Ploughmen’s wages to cover the necessary attend-ance-to horses on Sundays. General farm bauds 24s per week in addition to board; day laborers 6s Od per day; casual laborers Is per hour; men employed at draining Is per hour (gum boots to be supplied by' employer); harvest hands, except stackers, £2 15s per week, or Is 3d per hour, with board; stackers £3, or Is Od per hour, with board; boys’ wages— fit years, 15s per week; .18 years, 17s 6d; 19 years, 20s; 29 years, 22s Gd; 21 years, 21s; all in addition to board. Overtime to be paid for at the rate.of time and a-quarter; Sundays time and alialf. except for irecesary time occupied in attendance. on horses and cattle. Holidays to be allowed extra if men have to cook tlieir own food. Under-rate workers may beemployed subject to the conditions laid down, but a permit to work for less than tlio minimum wage cannot be granted for a longer period than six months. The usual preference is granted to Unionists, and the,employer cannot, in the dismissal of his workers; make any discrimination against members of the Union. Nothing, however, is to prevent tho continued employment of workers now in the employment of any employer-; .although such workers may not bo or beconio members of the Union. Nothing in the recommendations is to affect the arrangements made between an employer and members of his family, and nothing, is to restrict the liberty of farmers in helping each other in farm work. Nothing in the clauses referring to general farm hands is to operate, either as regards hours or wages, when a worker is engaged in milking or attending to cows, but the hours and wages of such workers-are to be fixed by mutual arrangement. In connection witli file slieepowners’ case, the Board were of opinion that •it was not desirable -to interfere with existing conditions. A memo, is attached that as no reference was' made to the dairying industry in the Union’s demands,'and as the Board of Conciliation work was restricted by the order of the Court to the Union demands, no reference was made to the dairying industry in the Board’s recommendations.

Minority reports hive a’so been prepared by the employers’ and the workers’ representatives on the Board respectively, but these have not yet been made 'public.