ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10704, 10 July 1900, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

MONDAT, JfLV 9. (Before His Bommr Mr ,)u».-t4n<i Martin .r.d Messra S. JJrown art.l It. stater.) The Orart ss*t «t 11 a,m. RE THB CARJPEVraRs' AKI» nniLl>£BS' VSinK. This was a complaint by tbt» Carpenters' and Builders' Union and th* Carpeoter? , au! Joiners' Union Jameson Bro^-.. Ptaro» and Rem>ie,*aod J. HatniMtt. Tin baachee alleged wore of the cbui*~; cf li.t uward directing that all journeymen carpenters or journeymen carpenters aad joiiur•should be paid not. le*-a than 10* Od foteacJi working day of houra; and that wa s -e* should b« paid wevkly. Mr Franks for tlie Union; Mr Russell for ttin MHployerv.

Mr Unveil siid fliat lw dt>ired to tail bin Honour's nttmiioii to the iWi. th;it it ra.t impos;jiblt« /or him to ifcit-;id lii--.-e faw- , , Ikx'uiik , it was not partisul.uly -,'t

out. in tlvf< nntabiy that of Julm Harum*t. ih/it a bn-a<;h < r "the tiwuri had been liwh'. 'iinTf wtc a \nr£H tuiiiibtr vi okius-fcs in thi' award, and ho siibm'tW-d lh.it hv had a, i<.> km.;v w'ihtu the Ireai'h was cotninittft!, wbaV iiu-v. had out been paiil v.iel.lv. ;nid ;i)l oiiur pi-rlicuiars. Mcwrs Henniy atcl I'f.-trtv t'njployi'd h\;ndrt'.tl.s «if iik-t. and their fnntr.tct:; v-ue Kpivctd .tit «ivir tlif pniviticv. . s 'ui-»ly in order to rue* , !, tlw lie war. entitled lo fKirticui.'trs. Undt-r tbfMi L* applied, for mi adjotiniiiicnt. Mr Franks ccntt'iidcd that as they \vm\ lodged tht* <omp!.tiiit mi.'iiv time back, .Mr HuMH-ll could iiav« coino to him and oblaimd the p.ir'.':i:i!!;ir:.. Jlis Iloiunir -iukl that .surely the employers were, entitled to a list <if ihe particular men wli<> \vtn> alleged to have b:en ]>aid and thoie who wt-it; aliened to h«vo bfti)"paid less than the wjiges fixed. The whole of tl«? ta.scK in connectj'«:i nilh the carjH'tih'i.s would be adjourned till Wednesday at 10 a.m. Hi: tiu: isakkhs' tnion. Thit« was an application by the Bakers' »nd I'ajti'.ycooks" Luiun to •.■utorce un award made l>y 'Mr .lustiie Kdwards in January last, 'Ihf conditions of tin' award in wliieli the bTcadi was alleged was clause 13, preference <(' Unio'iists, and it , was stated thitt •Mr J.»st]>!» Jiiiif.s.ioii, of Tai Tupu, bad ctiiployttl ji utiKi nanud F.urell, a iioii-imioniHC menilnr of tlic-; iade out of employment.

Mr Jovnt tor the Union, -Mr Johnston in

perNoo. .Mr Joynt..opened the case for tht- Union, and put in the r-mploynieat book, .showing that several Tiicmb'/rK of vhe I'uiun were out of eniployou'iit at the time of the employof Vantdi.

Kvifk'Ui. , -:' \\:i:> then rroeivod for the Union. Mr.h.ynl the following \vifiiL«ss«a : — 11. A/. secretary 'to ihe Union, w'no ilejxistti tliii-t lie saw I'arreH i:i the bakehouse <<: Mr Johnston in April last in his working clothes. He vra-x not a member «rf the Union, and had never ibeen «>. At tfchb time wit tress knew «>f several members of the Union out of employment . In reply to Mr Johnston, the secretary said then , were iir April two men at leaut out of employment who <w*re capable of managing a bakery. The Bakers' Uui»>n of Wellington was itdfenaed with the Union here. H* did nm. know that Farrell was » member nf the Wellington Union. John Hanson Mas also cited for having committed ;i brcuch of the award Uy having employed two men , named Chisimll and SMWiono who were iam-Unionists, and the &#o caaex were t>.iken> together. Mr Joynt Appeared for the Union. In , reply to Mr Bauson, the secretary said that he hud not aeked the m**. to become, members of the Union.

F. \V. Collins, a. member <»f the Union, deposed that AtAwsUnt must have known ■hfc <was out of work when, ho engaged Farrell. Witness had been over 24 years hn th* trade; had Ibeeii' a foreman for over ten jtears, and w<w capable of takitig any position in the itoikeboiLse. He had bee» oub of regular employment for thirteen or fourteen months. "In reply to Mr Johnston, ■wifciveat) mid he -was in jobbing work on, the 12th April, but he hid his d<own for • tormunencjr it> the 'books of the Union. ft. J. Hampton deptwod thai he was v, tecoud kwvd, ami bad beew six yearn in the trade. Ht wjw oirt of employment in April iaet. ami lum name was v* the- employment iwok. Hβ wettt -with, the secretary to Mr Jolmston's a-mi saw Farrell "working there.

'Xhh was about two months' ago Wit- ' mum was not capabta of taking Mr Joh-ii-eton'e eitiKitkm, which wu»e that of a foreraa>a, but be was quiUs cupable of taking the innk dbne by MaJhome ut iMx Hanson's. Bobert Stewart deposed that he wa» a forelrand baker, am? a member of the Union. Kte earn* was in tho out of work book, and Im had worked five weeks since March kst. TS.O wus iwr working nt Surroyside A«yimn, tiod was fully qualitied to takn * forehand place, in reply to Air Johnston, the witttt&t said that [to came to Cantetbuty on the i9th Mwrclt.

Thin cloeed tho case fwr the Union

John Johnetoa d«puee<l that on engaging JRVirr«H he asked him whetlier fie was a inembftf of the Union. Farrell replied that he yum a tnfamb«- o? tho Wellington Union. On 12th April « deputation from the journertmn buikers waited on i)hn and pervLtl iiini witi» a ttotice. Wlm-h witnees fowtwl that JFkrtieH w*3 iwst, a of the C'hrL*,tclwrch Union h« advised him to join the Cfturietchurrh. Union. Ho did not urge him fMt) way or tho other. Farrell bed since written to tlt» secretary /or information as to faming rte Union. His Honour pointed oat that ail that Farrell n<eed do was to «cc the secretary, pay the fees* and b*-t:onw a member of the Union.

In reply to his Honour, wititess said Farndl wjia not litre. He did not look at the employment book. l*n«re were three men e&iployed by him.

By Mr Joytit: He mid Farrell, who was doing Koeontl hand work, £2 2« per week and Ms fool.

Mr Hanson suid lie did not know what he !iad to meat, us there was nothing stak>d in tfe vitatioti.

In examination Mr Hanson deposed that a BOUiu named Muhonehad been in, his bakehouse hf the charity of hi* biker. He had not paid Itim it farthing o f W ase!«, and h« came t*nd went ;«R he likt-d. The m.m Malione had l*wn unfortunate, and bis baker had kiln a hornt*, ho working with him when he

His Honour pointed out that Mr Hanson eader the Im,w, was .supposed to come to the office of th*> Clerk of"i-ln> Court, where vhe grounds of the application were set out. Mr Hamcm said (sh;xn;j)l luul been with him five or six ye»r<. ami ho understood he 'Was not a member of tha Uuiori.

His Honour jK.int-ed out that they had jCOt tins Act him! the award of tine, Court. »h1 did not Afr tt inwni think that to nvoiri friction Ifc would r>« bvlter for Sir- Chisiwil <-o p;vy b*, iuid 6U per wwk.'and "become a memtwr of tlit> U'niwt. ' "'

Mr Han.<<©» said that' Ohisnall was able to pleare hixnseifl ' ■' Hb Hariom , wtid that Mfr ChbnaH. pl<».i*nng feiniself |h«1 ri>«ulted m.Mr H:iits<>n being there that, clay. The Legislature iaaul' panned a certain jaw, and had set lip the* Cimrt. to cnfoifo th*> system. Why j they iM)t« us? endeavour t<» goon, with (JiH w>rk α-s sjmnv.ljly as pqseibl*? bii;ycle r|r!erH thought It a, ban) tiU'.lltH- that thvrt was a- law piw pnt-, ing t|«?ia frujn ruliitj; n-n th« footpaths jnst no ' ',' i'" Mj.JoynWTJuf. tiwy do rw?4> on tlw foofr j»uiH ni larc'o'numbers, your Honour. His HtMMJur «U(1 that he woitid upon Sir it t< v Mr Oiisnall tliat. be misjjife l(x)k tbie 6d a week ;us a charity voiir,'Hoitous, . , . , . .. * ili ■.Hofipi|r:,\V«;ll, put it that way. But wfX'J I des-irV'to pbiut out, Mr Hanson, is that tls« have to ndrainist««<viU Tbe!(r«m«ly against any furllitr tn>n\)ie .ijsVLsy. If these men join tlie Uaifiu tJwii t|S f'lvfo trouble will be orer. Tliey r.mil not attend the meetiags if they i&o tu»t liUf. Isut w«'are bound to enforca ih« award of the Oourt. and to carry out the law, lw>weviT impleu«int it may be to som« pOTsems. The siuiie trouble, his Hormnr watit ou to suy. appeared to exist Jwere as in otho.t i>arts of the colony, viz., tha* the emptoyt-if) would n«t take the twublo t« m;ito thonu*lyoe acouaintwl tntk the terms of the award, which would diet Arm nothiiMf to inspect. The Court eonld *iot ttnployeni to da this; all they «ooM do wa« to iine. The fines wonld h e «ach, the onto of the' Ck»urt and wit-

a expensw *livid«"d Iwtwwn them, \rhU £2 2u cvu-h oxperetes tif solicitor. UK THE T*mjßlN<; TftADK. In Uiiwt.vse tho Tailoring Trade lndu*Ui ii 'Ji.iun cited Nixon Kro*. fgr breaches of ■i:i indtmtria! agreement. Mr Widdowsnn appeared for the Union. Tho alleged brearhwi <>i tho> industrial agraeevkset tvero with reference to the proportion of weekly bauds to piece worker?. ■ ;id as to tins empV>yixMais< «i oae C. Farrin; a less than the prescribed rat* of wages. Etamt Oob», Mcretery of f≥6 Uidua. produced several dodumeate witii refcreiKc ) th« regiitra.Uoa oi the Union, et«.. auu (i'j>o«;d ac to Nis«i Bros, beocming a ii^inb^t , of the M;i*t«T Tailoi-s' AsKOCiation, i»(i therefore a party U> the industrial iii Pin, ;i copy of wliicu w.'ts delivered Ui them. A special meeting of the Union bad hoei! !it-!d to ctmsidcr the bre:icbes of tlse industriai

at which it w«*s resolved tv cue t-iie linn of Nixim Jiros. He ocquaintrd iijf Mj.*tw Tailors' Union, of breturlres of the agreement by Nixon Brc«.

A. W. Bain, secretary «»f tliP -Ma-sicr Tailors' Uniou, deposed that Mr Nixon, of Ni.xoft Bros., \viw a member of I hi* Union. '• •» March IGth lit , received iiotit c i'rom .Mr (Johns th.it Messrs Nixon IJr.'j*. wens no: tarrying out. certain clauses <>i th« agreement. YVifiie-- 1 ' wrote , to Mr Nixon, u<. him with this i»»tic<?.

C. Fairanl dejKised thai. h«* was employed by Nixti'i iii'is. in April Hi-- vrugi-s hviv B6s j.cr veek ax ;v weekly hand. The. nun employed four men and tkrVe girls; tiu.re \v>.re no piece workers.

By Mr Nixon—Witness signed nti agneem.:iit. r with Mr Nixon Uefr.it? the Union came irviii fonv. Witness could no! be certain that there w«?t? no piece workers: so far ;ts lio knew there were no!. He did notknow whether tire men were paid piece work or by wages. By bis Honour—Witness was twenty-one in February last. His father or gnardiaa was hot. a party to the agreement.

John Wilson deposed that lie worked for Nixon Bros., but he could not say whan. About E;isler ho vraa working at Mr Nixon's. Hβ was getting 35s per week as a weekly hand. So far as lie knew there were no piece workers.

By Mr Nixon—To his knowledge—knowing how pkee workers worked—there were no piece workers at Mr Nixon's, and only one w«>kly wage worker. He was quite satisfied with the rate of v.tges he was and he never asked Mr Nixon for more. During the period he w>!s getting 55s per week he turned out four pairs of troiiseM per week. Nov." that he was on piece work he could earn £3 to £3 10s per week at 6s ptr pair.

This closed the case for the Union

Mr Nixon stated that the young "men were working for him for two years, and were junt hlmjvo apprentice*. He raised the w:iges of hi.s workers to the standard when the Union came into force, and he Mr UohuK whether it muttered v* to those workers who were in employ before the Union. and lie said that it did not. It referred to the men he took on alter the Union agreement was entered into.

His Honoru put it to Mr Nixon that the agreement perfectly dear on the qus.-!-tion of hours %>f labour, rate of pay, t-tc. ]t might be that, there would be complications arising out of the construction of the log as to different garments. In this case it appeared that Mr Nixon had not, as he should do. looked into the agreement which he had entered hi'o and which affected his business for three years.

His Honour said the decision of the Court would be given on Wednesday next at 10 a.m.