ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10057, 8 June 1898, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE BOOTMAKERS' DISPUTE. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) DUNEDIN, June 7. On the Arbitration Court meeting this forenoon re the bootmakers' dispute, the President intimated that the Court had come to the conclusion that the matters involved were of such a technical character as to necessitate the assistance of experts. The Court then adjourned till two o clock to enable each side to appoint an expert to sit as members of the Court. Both the Union and the Manufacturers' Association named as their experts one of their number sitting at the table, but Judge Edwards declined to accept their services as they were practically appearing as counsel, and necessarily must show partiality. When the last trade dispute was before the Conciliation Board, iv February last, the Board refused to deal with it owing to the technicalities involved, and decided to remit the matter to the Arbitration Court, no amicable settlement appearing possible. To-day the President of the Court expressed the opinion that it would have been much better if the Board had taken evidence, as the Court would then have known wherein the parties differed. When the Court resumed in the afternoon, Mr A. E. Bone took his seat on the Bench as the expert named by the employers and Mr Sydney Charles Brown as the expert of the employees. Mr Arnold, representative of the Federated Union of Bootmakers, opened the case of the Union at considerable length. He explained that the Union appealed to the Court to reconsider the decision last arrived at, as they considered they had, in consequence of being wrongly advised, been placed at a disadvantage in not filing their bwn statement as the basis of agreement. An important statement was made by Mr Justice Edwards while Mr Arnold was opening. On the question of preference to unionists, his Honour said—"You mutt not take it for granted that there ib any principle laid , down generally, that union men have the right of preference. That must depend upon the circumstances of eaoh particular case. In some cases it is reasonable that they should; in other cases it would be unreasonable." In reply to the President, Mr Frostiok said he would not like to say the employers disputed all the points submitted by; the Union. Mr Arnold mentioned that the award of the Court must affect the dispute in Chmtchurch, which was being he! over. Then there were 300 members of the Union in Auckland, and as soon as the award was given, it would be filed in Auckland, as there was a dispute there. If the firms not summoned in Dunedin did not fall in with the agreement they would be taken before the Conciliation Board.

The Court adjourned till to-morrow with* out taking evidence.