LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1556, 27 September 1912, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

. : —* ——- .. " HOURS & WAGES. (Before Arbitration Court.) • THE SOFT GOODS ASSISTANTS. IDEAS PRO AND CON. ~ '; ' Employee's in. the soft goods retail trade' are seeking to improve their wages ana hours of work; and the dispute that had arisen between them and their employers came before the Court of Arbitration yesterday ; Mr. .Justice Sim presided,' and sitting with him were Mr. Win. Scott (employersrcpresentative) and Mr, J. A. M'Cullough (employees' representative). 'Sir. M. J. Reardoh appeared for the union, while Mr. \V. A. W. Grenfeli appeared for the employers.' - ■ Soft Goods Men's Demands. In the demands of the union it was asked that any person should be deeined a - shop assistant who is engaged in any'capacity relative to the reception, display, sale, or delivery of goods' in retail establishments. For the purposes of-classification they -should be divided into buyers, departmental managers,' window-dresssrs, seniors, improvers,' 'apprentices, storemenr packers, 1 porters, and liftmen: A week of 43 hours was asked, the ordinary working hours to be from -9 a.m. to noon or 1 p.m., and from 1 p.m. or 2 p:m. to 6 p.m., with a special stipulation that no work shall be done after noon on Saturday; , Rates of pay were asked for as follow Buyers, 10s. per week; departmental managers, .£5; window-dressers, *<£5; seniors, 15s:; female-buyers, *JB3 10s.; fe male seniors, ; i' 2 10s.; head stotemen, £3 Bs.; general storemen, £3; others to range fro.m 15s. per week to JcA 10s. per week.-A 1 fortnight's annual holiday was also asked -for on full pay. 'Provision'in the demands was also made for holidays, casual hands, aged or iniirin workers, overtime, prefersnce,' etc.. . The Counter-proposals. 1 Counter-proposals were submitted by the employers,,- who objected, to. the classification set out-in the union's .demands. They also, objected to the,demands re payment of wages, hours of work; Saturday, halfholiday, holidays, preference, overtime, and several other minor matters.. They suggested that any award made should not apply to lift attendants or cleaners. -Regarding wages, the proposals stipulated that shop assistants up to and oyer 16 yeaTs of age entering the trade without previous experience, should be paid weekly ■« ages, ranging from 10s. per week males, and os. per week females, in the first year, to £2 os. and' XI 55.. after the seventh year. Assistants entering the trade between the ages of 18' and 19 years shall be deemed to have served one year; between 20 and 22 years shall be deemed to have served two years; over 23 years, shall be deemed to have served three years. Wages of storemen were suggested to range from 10s. per week to £115s; per week, and pay of casual labourers to be Is. par hour miles nnd Bd. per hour females. Lengthy .evidence is being called, .and several of the union's witnesses -were still to be . examined at 4.30 jj.id.,. when' the" Court 'adjourned until' this morning. 1 ,

BESPOKE WORK. U.\lo_\ CLOTHING CO.'S APPEAL. Reserved judgment has been delivered by the Court of Arbitration dismissing an appeal from a decision of Jlr. W. G. liiddell, S.JI., who some time ago convicted the Union Clothing Co. of a breach of the Wellington Tailors' Award. Th« particulars' of the alleged breach were that during the month of Alay, 1912, tho company iad certain bespoke work (tie order for which was taken at the firm's shop in Cuba. Street) done at another factory. ■' From the evidence submitted at the hearing, the magistrate found that a on.— tomer named Killett had ordered a tailormade suit on .31 ay 6, 1912, and had beuu,. measured for it, the price agreed being iSi is. Nothing was (said at tho first interview as to whether'the suit would be factory made or not, but Killett had beon told by the' Union Clothing Co.'s salesman that he could not have - a "try-on." , When Killett culled again he was told ! that- the suit was "factory-made," and, when the suit had been completed, lis called again, tried it oh, and remarked that the sleeves Were too short. He was then told that he could "take the suit or leave it" He thereupon decided to leave tho garments, which were accordingly placed in stock. ICest day, however, he came back and intimated that he would take the snit if the sleeves were altered. The alteration asked for was made, and Killett took delivery. Tho 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. Prom this decision the Union Clothing Co. .appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in la-w. Purther, if a breacfl had been committed, it was contended that it was tibial and excusable, and the action should have been dismissed trader Section 16 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1905. " •At the hearing Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for the appellants (the • Union Clothing Co.), while Mr. H. H. Ostler, of . the Crown law Office, appeared for the respondent (the Inspector of Awards). In giving judgment the Court reviewed the case at length, referred to the authorities cited, and came to the conclusion that appellants had failed to establish that the magistrate's decision was erroneous. The appeal was therefore dismissed with 5 guineas' costs.