FARM LABORERS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2227, 26 June 1908, Page 2

FARM LABORERS’ DISPUTE.

THE MINORITY REPORT. DISSENT FROM BOARD’S FINDING. [Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, June 25. EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES’ REPORT. The minority reports in the farm laborers’ dispute were presented to the Arbitration Court, together with tlie main report made public yesterday. Messrs Broad head and George Sheut, who represent the employers on the Board, submitted the following minority report:— Wo, the undersigned members of the Canterbury Conciliation Board, beg to dissent from the findings of the majority of the Board in the Canterbury agricultural laborers’ dispute for the following reasons: (1) That the evidence showed conclusively that there was not, and never liad been, any real dispute between the. farmers and genuine farm workers. (2) That until a few men employed in trades in the city visited the farming centres for the purpose of organising the farm laborers, no trouble of any consequence between the employees and their employers had arisen. (3) That the weight of evidence was' overwhelmingly against the wisdom of any necessity for making an award applicable to the farming industry, as the following facts taken from tlie evidence will show: (a), witnesses called—The Union called about 53 witnesses, nearly 20 per cent of whom were not engaged in the (arming industry at the time they gave evidence, while, the farmers called, besides 89 farmers, two farmers’ sons, 21 ploughmen, etc.,, 17 contractors, 5 permanent day men, 1 overseer, and 2 casuals, making a total of 50 genuine farm laborers and a grand total of 156 witnesses; (b) question of dissatisfaction—The number of witnesses called by the Union who said there was dissatisfacton among the workers was about 17, while there were no fewer than 82 witnesses, embracing some workers, who stated either that no dissatisfaction existed or that they had heard of none. Generally speaking, the workers called by the fanners expressed themselves quite satisfied with existing conditions and desired •o change; (c) wages—lt was shown that the wages paid in each district varied according to the capacity of the men,, that tlie work of the employees. on a farm was frequently varied so much that it would be practically impossible in a number of cases to compute the rates of pay of each worker if the proposed schedule, or one of a'similar character, were adopted, and that the varying nature of the land, tlie different conditions under which the land had to be worked, and the varying class of men often employed, rendered the position too complex to admit- of any rigid fixing of wages. It was further shown that the remuneration paid in cases and privileges granted were fair and reasonable for the services rendered ; (d) hours of labor—Tlie fixing of the hours of labor was considered impracticable, as farm hands were required to do all kinds of work at all hours and when weather conditions permitted ; (e) holidays—ln the great majority of cases holidays wero given to tlie laborers on full pay when asked, either for pleasure or for other purposes. This was admitted by the workers callbd by both parties: (1) Saturday half-holiday—Twenty-five witnesses called by the farmers and ten by the Union considered that the giving of a Saturday half-holiday was not practicable Ten witnesses called by the Union thought it was workable ; (g) contract—-Nearly fifty witnesses stated that- they preferred contract, as it enabled them to earn high wages and allowed them to work as little' or as- much , as they pleased, while about nine witnesses said they preferred to work at so much per hour; (h) preference—lt was stated that there were about- 1500 farm workers on tlie membership roll of the Union, while it was estimated that there, were from 15,000 to 16,000 in the whole of Canterbury, that the Union’s rules showed that the Union was a close corporation and could therefore exclude from its membership whomsoever it pleased, and that many men. including small farmers who owned land but who ako worked for other farmers and who would not he eligible, for membership of the Union, would, if -a preference clause wero granted, be debarred from employment. It was also shown that farmers might, under such a clause, ho compelled to take into his household men of undesirable character, and that any provision for preference would be wholly unworkable and detrimental to the industry; (i) overtime—lt was pointed out- that the overtime on the farms was often inevitable, hut that this was fully’ compensated for by holidays given on full pay and by times of slackness occasioned through weather conditions.

(4) That an award if made would effect drastic changes in tlie system under which farm work has been carried on in Canterbury during the past 50 years; that the bulk of the evidence of both employers and workers showed that the system had worked satisfactorily, and that if the proposed change in the conditions wero brought about, it would, in our opinion,- cause grave dissatisfaction and seriously disturb the present harmonious relations existing between employer and employed. (5) That, as the farming industry, as pointed out in the evidence, is at present, suffering from reverses caused by tlie past two years’ drought, it would, in our opinion; he unwise in the interests, not only of tho industry, but of the general public, to place any further burdens upon it. (6) That in view of the foregoing facts, we are strongly of opinion that tlie best solution of the present trouble is to allow existing conditions to continue,

REPORT OF WORKERS’ REPRESENTATIVES.

Tho minority report of Messrs H. A. ltusbridgoand G. R. Whiting, the ‘workers’ representatives on tho Conciliation Board, made the following recommendations:—

Wages—Head shepherds on plains or downs country’ (if married) shall receive a minimum wage of not less than £1 12s 6d per week, and on back and mountainous country not less than £1 los 6d per week. House, fuel, rations, horses and feed for dogs to ho free of rent or other charges; any other necessaries as per agreement. The same, wages shall ho paid to all single men, ami hoard and lodging in lieu of house, etc. Wages for under shepherds 30s, casual shepherds 355, mustorers 11s per day or £3 per week, with 10s extra for sundry work, packers £3 and 10s extra for Sundays.

, The report continues:—With regard to the following items of the demand-sheet—(a) Saturday half-holi-day, (b) wages for four-liorse ploughmen and general farm hands 24s per week and swa'mp ploughing 30s per week, (c) wages for day laborers 6s per day, we desire to place on record very clearly that we have agreed to tlie Hoard’s decision in this connection simply and solely for the purpose of demonstrating that a majority of the members, of the Board are convinced of the practicability of an award in this industry. The decision does not embody our opinion as to what constitutes a fair award in the above-mentioned cases. Our opinions are as follows: A Saturday half-holi-, day—Bay laborers: That hours should be worked on five days of the week and hours on Saturdays, excepting at harvest time; ploughmen' and general farm hands: That a halfholiday should be allowed on Saturdays to all ploughmen and general farm hands, excepting in harvest time. Wages for ploughmen: That 27s Gd per week be allowed for ploughmen working a four-horse team, and 3s extra per week for swamp ploughing. The wage of 27s Gd per week is embodied in our clause re married couples herewith, and is, wo contend, clearly justified by tho report dealing with the present conditions of the farming industry, for which .report a majority of the members of the Board voted. Wages for day laborers: That 7s per day at least

should he paid to day.-laborers. This, also, is justified as above, aud by tho fact that navvies, general laborers, Road Board men, and railway men' are now receiving 8s to 9s per day. A great deal of evidence was given showing that 7s per day is being paid in many cases, •’-articularly in South Canterbury, and in some cases 7s. 6d and 8s per day is being paid to day laborers. In some instances dinner is also provided. Tho report also recommends that the wages of married couples shall be, man 27s 6d per week, wife, .if cook, 15s per week,! but if required to bake bread 20s per week. In addition to tlie above the wife shall recoivo 2s per week extra for each person over four that she is required to cook for. The following clause is recommended: lie contract work, no work covered by these conditions shall bo let by “contract” or “piece work.” This shall not prevent any man owning a team doing team work by contract. This clause shall not apply to contractors owning machinery operated by steam, electricity, horse or other motive power, but shall include all work of a manual hharacter whether done for the ow/ier,propriotor, or contractor.. , A strong protest-is entered agairist the-clause dealing with milking, on the ground that milking might he provided in a nine-hour day of two shifts. Tlie concluding part of the report referring to tho classification of witnesses throughout the hearing of the case says: Many quite unjustifiable charges were made with regard to tho witnesses called on behalf of the workers, to the effect that they wero not bona fide farm laborers. We would draw the Court’s attention to the classification lists of witnesses submitted by the Board, which lists were approved of unanimously by. the Board.' Sixty-one out of the total of sixt-v-fivo witnesses called on behalf of the Union were farm and station workers. Preference to Unionists: In regard to the clause dealing with preference to Unionists, in tho Board’s report,, we would impress up- ; on the Court tho absolute need of pre- , ference being given to Unionists on , account of tho bitterness and rosenti ment that has been shown to union- ; ism by nearly every employer tliroj ughout the bearing of tlii.s case. Wo ■ consider that, common justice de- . mauds that the Unionists should have ; that protection to which they are entitled as members of a registered [ body, and that the Court should grant them preference on such linos , as will ensure them that protection.