ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1545, 14 September 1912, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

SUIT OF CLOTHES, AND'THE TJNION CLOTHING CO. CBefore His Honour Mr. Justice Sim.) ( The sittings ,of the Court of Arbitration were continued..'(yesterday morning. Mr. Justice Sim. presided and there wore nlso on tho Bench Messrs, Wm, Scott (employers, representative), and J. A. M'Cullough (employees' Tepresentative). . In the morning the Court was engaged in hearing an. appeal from a,decision of Mr. W.'G.-Biddell, S.M., who some time ago convicted the Union Clothing Co. of a breaoh of the ■Wellington Tailors' Award. The. particulars of the alleged breach were that during the month of May, 1912, the company had certain bespoke work (the order for which was taken at the firm's shop in, Cuba. Street) done at another fa6tory. ' From the evidence submitted at the heaTing," the magistrate found that a. customer, named Killett, had ordered a tailor-made suit on May 6, 1912, and had -been-'measured'for., it, the price agreed ■ being' £1' is. - Nothing was said at the. first interview as to .whether the suit would be factory made or not, but Killett had been told by the Union Clothing; Co.'s salesman that he could not have a "try-on." When Killett called again he wag toltf.,that the suit was "factory-mado" and, when the'suit had been completed, he called again, tried it on, and remarked that tho sleeves were too short. ''Hβ .was then told that'ho could "take the suit,or leave it." He thereupon decided to leave the garments which were, accordingly placed, in; stock. Next day, however, ho came baok and,intimated that he would take the suit if the.sleeves wero altered. The alteration asked for.was mado, and Killotfc took delivery. The suit had been made .at . a factory,. and, the alterations were also made, off the Union Clothing Co.'s premises. On-these facts, the magistrate had determined that, the suit was a "bespoke" suit, and the Union Clothing Co. had been, convicted. .-■■-.

From this decision the Union' Clothing Co. now appealed on the proiindithat.it, was- erroneous in law.. Further, if a breach had been committed, it was trivial and excusable,.; and the action'should •:. hav« been dismissed under Section 16 of: : ' the Industrial Conciliation jnd Arbitration Amendment. Act, 1908. Mr. W..F. Ward anpeared .for. the ap. pellants (the Union Clothing Co.), while Mr. H. H. Ostler, of the. Crown ■ Law Office, appeared for the respondent (tho Inspeotor of. Awards). ' ..' >■ After hearing argument, the Court reserved decision... ..... .... ■SAWYER MEN. THOSE WEIRD "DEFINITIONS." When the Sawmillers' and Timber Worfc- . ers' dispute was called, Mr/F.'-J. Lyons ■ appeared for. the Union, and Mr. W. A. W.:Grenfell.for the-'employeVs..- . Tho. .demands of .the union were for a week of, io-houj-s,' nnth waijes. ranging from Is, W. per hour to Is.-6d. per hour, JOs. per week. Special provisions ; were made, for boys' wages, and new definitions were included • to grade- tho workers. A. preference'clause wag. asked for, .similar to .that in forco .in Southland, and AnckJand. ".•■■• ; As the hearinj vias. about to commence, . Mr-. .Read, representing the Stationary aud Tracjaqn -Engine-drivers'-Union, 'aski«s , to_be allowed to protest against.an award being niiids.-on-tlie-basisof th^old-award. J-he engme-driTere working in ■ sawmills ,™ re T Dot,i^pTO- ; ., r ,membsrß. l .o4.th6 Timber Worters be included in the award." - .'- ' ■ ■ His .'-Honour: "If. the employers, leave ( yon.-ont of. this award, mil,you agree to for-egftpreferencov'when.-you come'be-- /' fora ..the-. Court ?"■' -.-.;-. . ... ... Mr. B?ad: Certainly;• not, your Honour. Hia Honour, said that -the employers could, not be expected to go running round ■ hnding out whether, a. tban was a-mem-her of; that -union or some other.' It was m the interests of the • men that the employers shbuld have some c6nsi''eration. ,- -.•:■.■ ,-,- • • . ' , M Z; , L y° ns ''? opening, eaid'. that, the in. dustry was a skilled one, and ft dangerous one, and should bD paid as such.' The union _was asking for a reasonable week's wont for a reasonable week's pay. The union ha/V had difficulty in organising on account of the unsatisfactory nature of .. tbe preference olause. and that was the • ... reason why its membership.did riot include a gMater. proportion of those engaged in the'industry.' He proposed to call evidence .to' Show' that : the demands were reasonable. v ..'• ... Isn't That Ridiculous? Thomas' Andrew Clark,-prderm'an, employed 'at Miller's . yard, in TaranaW btreet, stated .that ho -was. receiving Is. ... 2d. per hour. He had had experience in and, on occasions, had found difficulty in obtaining ■ his money. He had, had to wait from a. month to , six weeks. On one occasion he had been UD ?' ?I? ot,tain Ms w n»n ho re. . quired them to come to town urgently on account of illness in his family. Pay. ment inj;he country • was ' always bv cheque. Witness preferred to work in the wn, :it -rfas more convenient'for'a man with a family. Witness resided in Bernamppre, and paid 15s. a week rent. He had a'wife and seven 'ohildren to "sup. port.- It was a hard struggle for a man to Jive; on the present wages. John Evans,-first-class sawyer, employed attha-Stewart Timber, Glass, end Hardware. Company, Ltd;, deposed-to receiving wage's at the rate of Is. sd. per hour. He had always been receiving more than the award rate. ■ .. , Mr. , . Lyons was then proceeding to ( eiamine witness as ability to perlorni' the dunes in-the new definition of sawyer. ~'. His Honour asked;' "Where do you get jour interpretation from, Mr. Lyons? Have they "anything to'do with other awards? --- . ■■ ■• '.. '■ .":. ■

Mr.Xyqns replieid that they had"been dealing with their, own conditions-only, His Hbnour: Then .'everybody who has gone bef ore you-uriion officials and allKnow nothing of the position? Mr. Lyons pointed oufc ; that the old demands had been made by •iriexperienoed ""?• l 6 ,?*»rds in other centres would not meet the. conditions here. : His Honour: Ton come here with new definitions Mr. Lyons, and expect everv-. cuTousT '° ° P im, Isn,t that tidi - Jtihz^!* t¥ m ' m ™ M Witness (Evans) went on to say that he had-never wished to join the union, as ho had always been getting more than the award rate. Evidence was also given by John Gibbms,"-first-class machinist; Thos Carter,-first-class sawyer; Wm. Newman' yard labourer; John Lillowall, ordermanand Thomas Bowden, driver. Only one or two of the witnesses were cross-examined. "Do You Undorstand tho Definitions?" Mr. Grenfell, opened for tho employers nt considerable le.ngth. Tho first award ho iaid, was made in 1902, and a. new award in 1907. The latter had been drawn iip by agreement ofter a most exhaustive inquiry by the Conciliation Council, evidence being taken air over tho country. The Award', had been found to bo a very workable one, and tho evidence of the other side had not, ho submitted, shown that there was any change in the conditions coJling for a now /awa-rd. He would not : reier to.' the demands at length, as they seemed :to-bo;in a state of muddle. His Hononr; Do you understand the definitions? ;• -.-,-. -...- Mr. orenfell:-.Ko ( your Honour, I dc.n't. His Honour: Havs you got anybody that 'does uudars t.i nd • them ? Mr. Gienfeli: No, your Honour,' I haven't. • • After referring at length to the conditicne of the industry at th« present time as '.eompared with past years, Mr. Grenfell called evidenoe. ■ . Arthur.-Benjiotfc, manager of the Union Timber Co. at Pnlmerston North, gavo evidence to the effect that the industry was not such a profitable one as it had been. The present award had been found to bo very satisfactory to both sides. . If the now demands.were granted, it would, mean a. a>ri<ni3 increase in tho expenditure, rathor more than Che industry couli

stand. Most of the mehin the employ of witness's firm wore receiving more than tho minimur.i wage. Many of thorn had been with tho firm for a number of years. Witness, was cross-examined by Mr. Lyons, but after a few minutes the crossexamination drifted into an argument. His Honour: This ia not a crossexamination at all. It is a discussion, which you gentlemen had better put aside for the present. The witness then stood and 'further evidence was given by George Bartholomew, of the Kangitikei Sawmillers' Association, Feildmg; John David Smith, manager for W. Bcoth and Co., of Carterton and Wellington; Alexander M'Leod, millownerin the. Mnsterton district; and James Hntchens, manager fpr the'Stewart Timber, Glass, andi/.Hardware Co., Ltd. They all declared that the award was working satisfactorily. Tho Court reserved docision,