FARM LABORERS’ DISPUTE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2276, 22 August 1908, Page 3

FARM LABORERS’ DISPUTE

ARBITRATION COURT’S JUDGMENT. NO A AVAR D AIADE. [Press Association.]

DUNEDIN, August 21

Judge Sim ,in delivering judgment on tho Canterbury farm laborers’ dispute, said the Court had discretion whether or not to make an award, bi.it declined to do in tho present case. It appeared to tho Court that, dealing with farm laborers generally, tho Union had failed to provo the existence of any substantial grievance or abuse that would justify the interference of tho Court with the whole .farming industry of Canterbury. It further appeared to bo quite impracticable f 0 fix any definite hours for daily work of general farm hands without altering materially the system under which farming was carried on at the present time. The Court was not satisfied it was practicable to fix what would be a fair minimum wage for farm hands. If the minimum were fixed low, at for example 20s weekly, tlio result might be to bring down wages, which was an undesirable result; if the minimum was fixed at 25s or 27s 6<l a week, a considerable burden would be thrown <>ii tho farming industr’y, and tho increase in tho cost of farming would bo many thousand pounds. The effect of any such increaso in wages would bo to discourage tlio employment of labor, and induco farmers t ( > avoid grain-growing and other operations involving tho employment of labor. It bad not been proved that the men were being sweated. They were provided with food and shelter, and if tho pecuniary wages wore small, it might bo a caso where tlioy were not worth moro to tho farmer, and . they might havo difficulty ill earning a living at any other work. Tho judgment proceeds: “Tho conclusion we havo com© to is that it is not practicable to mako an award fixing the hours of work and wages for geiioral farm hands without altering seriously the conditions under which farming is now carried on. If a strong case had been mado out for interference, tho Court might havo felt compelled to mako an award and attempt to rogulato tho hours of work and wages of general farm hands. Such a case, however, has not been made, and the Court is thus relieved of tho necessity of making a perilous attempt to regulate by award the whole farming interests of the Dominion.”

Thore seemed to bo no necessity for interference of the Court on behalf of those engaged in harvest work. As to shepherds, musterors, and packers, an award was mado between the Union and slioop-owriers, fixing tlio minimum wage for mustorers under tlio Otago and Southland uvard of this year, nnd fixing those for packers employed in connection with mustering at 30s a week. This award only applies to workers engaged specifically as musterors or packers. Any regular farm or station li ind assisting in mustering or employed in packing will not come within the scope of tho award. Tho Court is not satisfied there is any necessity for making an award dealing with shepherds’ - wages. The question of living wage did not arise in the case of shepherds.

Air. J. A. McCullough, the workers’ representative on the Arbitration Court, when interviewed by a reporter, stated that ho most strongly dissented from the finding of the Court. He had handed in the following statement to the President in Dunedin. The President, however,, refused’ to' embody the protest in the Court’s finding, merely recording the fact that Air McCullough had strongly dissented. Air. AlcCullough’s protest reads as follows:

“Dunedin, 20th August, 1908. “Re Canterbury Farm Workers’ Dispute.—Though it is usual and customary for a member of the Court, when desiring to give a minority report on any matter upon, which he feels he cannot conscientiously support tho finding of the majority, to simply record his disagreement, yet L feel that in respect to the judgment given in connection with the Canterbury agricultural laborers’ dispute it is not only essential that I should emphatically and definitely protest against the finding in question, but as the representative of the workers on this industrial tribunal, I should Tie wanting in my duty towards _ those who have placed me in this position, were 1 to allow this important decision to bo dealt- with in the manner it has been without making public the full reasons that have induced me to protest. By a majority the Court has adduced a number of reasons why an award in connection with the farming industry should not be made. AVhile I have no desire to suggest that the Court, in coming to -this decision, .has been prompted by any xilterior or unworthy motives, I feel confident that not one of the reasons adduced, or all of them combined, are sufficient to justify the Court- in their refusal to make an award, nor has this particular case had, in my opinion, meted out to it -that justice which it should have received. I am forced to say that the Court has by its pronouncement succeeded in disposing temporarily of an important and responsible duty by sheltering behind a number of exaggerated and imaginary arguments that have, in one form or another, been made use of by the farmers for the purpose of obtaining their object. Efforts and arguments of this character have been in vogue ever since the first industrial union of workers attempted to obtain better working conditions, and repetition has added nothing to their value. I regret very much that I should be compelled to express my views in this manner, and shill more that there should be tho necessity for my doing so, but so far as I am personally concerned I have no hesitation in stating that I honestly believe it. Though the dispute in question presented many difficulties, it was not singular in tliis respect In fact the whole ol the difficulties could have been surmounted by the Court and ought to havo been surmounted. It is quite probable that the Court would not have succeeded in giving general satisfaction in all directions, yet I am convinced that it was quite within its power and therefore within its duty to have drafted or arranged an award that would have assisted iu a very nxa--1 terial degree towards removing many of the anomalies and hardships towards individual workers which undoubtedly exist in the farming industry at the present time, and that tho accomplishment of this duty would not have been tho cause of bringi'nb about the disastrous results foreshadowed by the Court in its deliverance. Further, it appears to mo, to be a most extraordinary and despotic proceeding to say that the largest section ot the workers ip this Dominion should be denied the right to have the condition of their livelihood, their wages, and their hours of labor fixed by means of that legislation which lias been expressly provided for this very purpose 111 conclusion, I hopo 'that those who have it in their power to prevent a. recurrence of what I conceive to be a miscarriage of justice will use that jwwer to obviate and remove a disability that can only be regarded by the workers as a hindrance to tlid aspirations and to their future prosperity. (Signed.) J. A. McCullough, workers’ representative on the Arbitration Court.” In reply to a question from tho reporter, Mr AleCullongh said that owing to his official position he must refrain from saying a good many tilings to the farm workers that ho would otherwise have said. He would, however,express the hope that they would not bo discouraged by this temporary rebuff, but that they would rather see in it additional reason for more complete organisation so that the victories of future would wipe out all memory of the defeats of the past.