"NO POWER."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1227, 8 September 1911, Page 3

"NO POWER."

UNLESS EMPLOYERS CONSENT. FURNITURE DISPUTE. NEARLY STRUCK OUT BY COURT, JUDGE REBUKES MR. MORIARTY.

When the Arbitration Court continued its sittings yesterday, tho first business called was the Furniture Trade Dispute. Mr. Justice Sim presided, and, sitting with him as assessors, were Mr. W. Scott, employers' representative, and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough, workers' representative. Mr. AY. A. W. Grenfell appeared for the employers, Mr. D. Moriarty for the union, and Mr. J. W. Jack to ask for exemption for Norman Beere and Co., organ builders.

When the dispute was before the Conciliation Council, the conference ended without recommendations, this being owing to the union refusing to go on, while Mr. Grenfell represented the employers as agent before the Council. At the time each party was represented by three assessors, but the union did not appoint an agent. Comment was made on the fact-that it was unusual for a dispute to bo heard without the presence' of agents, and tho Commissioner expressed the opinion that, immediately the union's assessors took upon themselves the functions of agents, Mr. Grenfell had a right to appear as the agent of the employers. It was because tho union refused to go on that the matter came before the Arbitration Court yesterday.

Mr. Gronfell stated that the newspaper report.? of tlie proceedings were not full, as the reporters had had to retire at an important stage. His Ilonour intimated that the Commissioner had forwarded a. shorthand report of tho proceedings, in addition to the newspaper reports. Mr. Urenfoll retorted that'when the reporters wore, absent, he had (at the request of (he Commissioner) made a statement on behalf of the employers. It was to' the effect that the onus lay on the union to show cause whv the conditions should be altered. Mr. Moriarty had declined to do so while, Mr. Grehfoll was present, and had remarked that tho demands "spoke for themselves." He further declined to accept tho ruling of tho Commissioner, who stated that he would have to take the dispute elsewhere. "To my mind," said Mr. Grenfell, "that was practically defiance of the Commissioner. In my opinion, Mr. Moriarty tried to gain an unfair advantage, over the employers by securing my exclusion from the room while he maintained his own position-as assessor."

Mr. Gronfell said that he hoped that his Honour would strike cut the dispute as he had done in the case of the Auckland Hotel Workers' case as reported in the Book of Awards on the ground that no attempt had been made to give effect to tho provisions of the Act with regard to conciliation.

The Court conferred for a couple of minute's and his Honour then remarked:

"The case does not seem to havo been considered by the council."

Mr. Moriarty: Will your Ilonour allow me to say a word?

His Honour: Yes, Mr. Moriarty, wo will hear you. The dispute seems t'o havo been a contest between you and Mr. Hally.

"Interesting to Have His Opinion." Mr. Moriarty thereupon asserted that Iho union had always been in favour of .„ conciliation. . When the original award |?J expired three and.a half years ago, the union had endeavoured to arrange a conference when Mr. Wostbrooke .was secretary. The latter, however, had never been a worker at the trade ami the union did not want him as one of their delegates. It so happened that the furniture trade was very quiet then, and the dispute dropped. &i- or eight months ago, they sought another conference, and ho referred, to : ;a press report, of. tho .proceedings'there. The employers had refused to meet tho nnion unless Mr. Grenfell was present. The union always objected to outsiders being present at their meetings and so tho matter was referred to tho Conciliation Council. Tho union decided not to appoint an agent as tho Act did not make it compulsory to do so. While claims for exemption 'were being heard, tho Commissioner pointed out that Mr. Moriarty was not an agent, but an assessor, and was therefore precluded from asking questions. After relating how tho conciliation proceedings came to an end, Mr. Moriarty remarked that the Hon. J. A. Millar had subsequently told him that the intention' of the Legislature was exactly as ho (Mr. Moriarty) had interpreted it. His Honour: Very interesting to have his opinion about it, I'm sure! Mr. Moriarty replied that the union was still quite prepared to meet the employers. Ilis Honour: We can't make any order for a. conference. We can only adjourn the case or striko it out as in the caso of the Auckland dispute referred to. Tho Court then'conferred and his Honour presently remarked: "The council was there to hoar your reasons. Apparently you declined to discuss the matter further. How can you say that that was conciliation?" Mr. Moriarty slated that he was not an agent, but an assessor. His Honour remarked' that it seemed to him that Mr. Moriarty had wanted to bo there as advocate under the guise of assessor. "And when Mr. Hally refused to allow that (his Honom added) you came away." • . Mr. Moriarty: We adhered to the Act. It is not compulsory to be represented bv an agent. J . His Honour: "You want an alteration in the conditions of the award, and you ought to do what the council wants you to dp. It seems to be a matter of v'our dignity more than anything else. You wanted your own way about the matter, and you preferred your own dignity to the interests of the workers." ' Mr. Moriarty maintained that the trouble arose through the Commissioner wanting an outsider to arguo the workers case.

Acting Under Legal Advice. His Honour observed that the council had to regulate its own procedure and Mr. Moriarty had uo right to dictate to it what it should do. Mr. Moriartj had evidently taken up his stand because he did not like a resolution moved by Mr. Hally. Mr. Moriarty: No, the resolution was moved by the employers. I asked Mr Hally's ruling in the matter. His Honour rejoined that he could see no reason why Mr. Moriarty should have objected if the other members of the council had wished to hear what Mr. Grenfell had to say. Mr. Moriarty:..l wish Mr. Hally were hero to be questioned. His Honour: He has sent a shorthand report. Tho Court again conferred, and his Honour afterwards remarked that it was clear that Sir. Moriarty had prevented tho council from Riving effect to the Act. Tho question was: What ought to be done.. (To Mr. Grenfell): "Axe you willing to go back bofore the Conciliation Commission?" # ' Mr. Grenfell: I ask,' your Honour, to give effect to the Auckland judgment, and striko the case out. His Honour: And originate a fresh dispute? Mr. Grenfell: As a necessary discipline to the union, your Honour! His Honour thought that some better arrangement was possible, and asked Mr. Moriarty what attitude tho union would take up if the employers were willing to go before the council again. Mr. Moriarty: Whatever your Honour rules. , His Honour: Well, the council must conduct its own proceedings, and, if it rules on any point, you must abide by it. Mr. Moriarty: Who arc the council? His Honour replied that tho majority ruled. The union went to tho council to ask for an aivard, and they must allow the case to be investigated. Thero was a difference between the party applying for the award and tho respondents. Mr. Moriarty: We are acting under legal advice. His Honour: Your advice did not go far enough. , Continuing, his Honour stated that tho Court had no power to refer the matter back unless the employers consented. Mr.. Grenfell: I don't think we ought to consent, your Honour. Mr. M'Cullough: Is that goinc; to help you, Mr, Grenfell?

Mr. Scott expressed the opinion Hint the. better plan vould be for Mr. Grenfell to consent, and the latter, after consulting with several of the employers, consented on the understanding that Mr. Moriarty would give full effect to the Court's ruling. His Honour: If Mr. Grenfell had insisted wc should huvo had to strike the case out, but he lias waived the matter, and the dispute will be adjourned on the understanding that yon go before tho Conciliation Council and get recommendations. This closed the matter.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS. Mention was made by Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell of the reecrn nidations of the Conciliation Council in the Electrical Workers' dispute. Mr. Grenfell stated that there were certain clause; which the employers desired to have slightly altered. The alterations referred principally to oversights in drafting and minor matters. A modification of the preference clause was also asked for.

Mr. W. C. Noot, on behalf of tho union, effcrecl. no serious objection to any of tho proposed alterations, excepting those regarding preference. Decision was reserved.

BLACKSMITHS AND FARRIERS. When the Blacksmiths' and Farriers' dispute was reopened before tho Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon Mr. W. A. W. Grenfell stated that ho had been asked to take over the easo of the employers in place of Mr. Talbut, who gave evidence later.

Mr. W. C. Noot appev-ed for the union. Mr. Grenfell announced that the conference between the parties had proved abortive, and that employers whom he represented now wished to submit their proposals to tho Court, and to place evidence before it. Tho proposals provided, for competent farriers or general smiths, Is. 4d. per hour, and for competent floormen Is. ljd. an hour. This was Id. an hour more than was being paid in the country in one case, and Jd. an hour ' more in the other case. Double time would bs paid for holidays. Mr. Grenfell alsp stated that he would like to call the attention of the Court to the fact that the hardships of the trade were as keenly felt by the employers as by the men, as nearly every employer in the city worked in his own shop. William Talbut, master farrier, stated that, in almost every blacksmith and farrier's business in the city, the employer was a worker, and generally worked longer than his employees. When the award came into force seven years ago, the conditions of tho trade were much better than they are at present. Competition was very keen now, and prices much lower than formerly. Tho iirma practically got no shoeing from the country, a; young horses for which they used to charge 10s. to shoe were shod 'in the country, for about os. For this reason, thousands of horses to be shipped to' Australia v-rro shod in the country instead of in tho city, as formerly. ' The profit, in witness's business, was small, and he was only able to make reasonable wages out of it.

To Mr. Noot: He Warned the men to a certain extent far the reduction in prices, ns some members of the union, while employed ns journeymen in sh"n=, did work ouWde the business. Thil« had led the farriers to reduce (heir prices. It was impossible far two men to shoo two heavy draught hordes in an hour. There was not Os. profit in shooing a draught horse.

Albert Vincent Knnpn. master farrier, considered that it would take two firstclass men to average five sets of shoes a day—mannfacturin.tr them, anrl putting them on. Ho corroborated the main noints of the previous witness's evidence. Two good men would make seven dozen shoes per day. To Mr. Noot: Two of his employees had once made It dozen shoes in a day. That, however, was for a wager. Evidence was also given by A. E. Neilson and J. J. Adams. Decision was reserved.