FURNITURE MAKERS' DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIV, Issue 35, 10 February 1903, Page 2

FURNITURE MAKERS' DISPUTE.

The dispute in the furniture trade was continued before the Arbitration Court yesterday afternoon: The Union was represented by Messrs S. Tysou, A. liosser and Aggers, and the masters by Messrs F. 11. Templar (secretary ot the Employers' Association). 11. Lrown, and C. G. Garlick.

Wm. Aggers gave evidence as to an Industrial agreement between the Tonson Garlick Co. and their employees, referred to by the previous witness. Preference to unionists was necessary in witness' opinion in the furniture trade.

George Charles Garlick, the managing director of the Tonson Garlick Co., was the hrst witness called iv the employers' case. Witness stated that the agreement referred to was an arrangement that employees should have the option of leaving at "a moment's notice, and employers of dismissing hands at a moment's notice. Witness was secretary of the Employers' Association when that agreement ' was drawn up. A few weeks before it expired they received notice from the employees of fresh demands. (1/2 per hour, and 44 hours a week), but since then nothing had been heard from the union until the present proceedings were instituted. The Employers' Association and witness thought that the present demands of. the union did not emanate from the men themselves, in fhe present condition of the trade generally he did not think it would stand an increase in wages. A recent briskness in trade was due to the furnishing of several hotels, but this was now at au cud. The wages paid here did not prohibit the importation of goods from Australia at a lower rate. If wuges were raised here it would lead to greater importation. j_.auri was now exported to Sydney and seiit across to New Zealand again in the shape of goods, showing that labour was cheaper there. For about two years his firm had had a diliiculty in getting bauds. When they wanted hands they always tested the local market first. There were a number of small makers in town, who were not bound by law or award of the court. He did not favour the adoption of the preference clause, but he had never made- any distinction between members of the union and non-members. He thought the present wages of apprentices were fair and reasonable.

To Mr Tyson; His Arm sent goods down South. He did not consider employers in Auckland were better off as regards material than employers in the South.

Thomas Finlayson, foreman at the D.S.C. works in Stanley-street, said he was receiving £4 a week. lie considered that, the present conditions of working were fair and equitable. He knew of a great deal of importation from Australia, and the goods imported were just of the class in which local makers could least afford to compete.

His Honor remarked that it had on a previous occasion been shown in evidence before the court at Christchurch that the amount of furniture imported into the colony was very small. This was based on Customs returns.

Continuing, witness said lhat he did not think there was much difference in wages between Auckland and Melbourne. They could send manufactured goods from the latter place to this colony cheaper than they could make them here, simply because in Melbourne the hands worked 25 per cent. harder than they did here. As a practical man he was sure that if the union's demands for wages were granted the trade would not stand the increase. I'le was against the preference clause, lie had always found that the best men were nonunionists. There was a tendency for unions to help men to get more than they were worth.

To Mr Tyson: The profits in the furni ture trade were* anything from 5 per cent to 50 per cent.

Frederick Avety, cabinetmaker, stated that he was perfectly satisfied with his hours and wages.

Wm. dimming, cabinetmaker, in Tonson Garlick's, thought that 1/1 an hour was enough for the average man. He had always found that a good man commanded a good price. He was not in favour of the preference clause.

The court then adjourned. This morning the employers' case was continued.

David McKenzie. foreman at Tonson Garlick's, said he did not think that workmen in the different branches of the trade should be placed on the same basis, as was dove in the union demand. lie considered the present conditions prevailing in the factory in which he worked were fair and reasonable. He did not; approve of the preference clause.

11. .7. Brown, partner in the firm of Brown Bros., Karan-ahape-road, said the men in his shop had never complained of the conditions of work. He thought that the union demands were justifiable at the present time. One effect of the demands might be to induce the masters to import more furniture and work with less men.

W. T. Smith, master cabinet maker, said that he did not consider the trade would stand the granting of the union demands. He had no complaints from his men. He did not approve of the preference clause.

Alexander Morrison, manager of the D.S.C, said that under the present conditions of trade the demands of the union were unfair. There were some goods which could be made locally, but which were imported because they could be imported cheaper than they could be made here. If the union's demands were granted re apprentices' wages, it would have the effect of reducing the apprentices in factories, if the demands of the union were granted importation would increase.

Mr Templer, In addressing the Court for the employers, said that the' employees were unable to see that the fact of wages being higher in the South was a reason for theirs being raised here. Ho submitted that nothing at all had been shown in this ease in favour of the preference clause, which was becoming a perfect night-mare to employers. In conclnusion, "Mr Templer submitted that there was no great amount of discontent among the workmen at the present conditions.

Mr Rosser, in addressing the Court for the union, submitted that Auckland had better facilities for getting material and was competing with the South under a lower scale of wages. He said that the argument that higher wages would mean more wages was an assumption. With regard to the preference to unionists, he submitted that a system of terrorism had existed, and that officers of the union had been discharged to demoralise the men.

The Court reserved its decision and adjourned. The dispute in the tailoring trade is the next to be heard, but owing to the difficulty in getting the Court-room it will probably not be heard until Monday next.