AUCKLAND FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

Press, Issue 11564, 22 April 1903, Page 8

AUCKLAND FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

CASE BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT. (PRESS ASSOCIATION TEXEGKAM.) AUCKLAND, April 21. | Tlie Arbitration Court resumed its sitting ! re the furniture trade dispute to-day, when the cross-examination of Mr Samuel Tyson, secretary to the Furniture Industrial Union, was proceeded with. In answer to Mr Cotter, witness stated uhat in conversation with Mr Garlick at the time the dispute arose, he suggested ■that Mr Garlick should take back the competent men at the increased rate under the award, and that the incompetent men go 'back at their old rates until an adjustment was effected. He intended that incompetent men should not go back at the old rates unless the competent, men were "paid la 3d per hour. There was'nothing in the award about the committee fixing the rates of pay to incompetent men, but that was the most common-sense view to take. Mr Campbell asked witness if the employers must nob necessarily have suspended the employees who were incompetent after the issue of an award, or pay the minimum award. His Honour said that certificates were issued to incompetent men for cix montlis, ! and did not expire, notwithstanding a new award having been made. * Mt Campbell said the employers clearly understood that everything in the old award expired when the new award camo in. If the employers had been aware of what his Honour said, that the wages of the men not previously earning the minimum wage were not immediately to bt raised, pending a settlement, not one of the men would have been discharged at all. His Honour—"There are two rates—one for competent men, and one for those unable to earn the minimum wage. The wag* for competent men was raised by. the award. It was not certain from'the old agreement whether a certificate continued in force, the clause being totally dissimilar to those in tftie other agreement." Mr Tole pointed out that the charge was not concerning incompetent men. The evidence of several workmen followed, closing the case against the employers. Mr Campbell, addressing the Court, submitted that the applications jlid not disclose any breach, either of the award or of tlie Act. Tlie proceedings, although enforcing a civil claim, • were partly criminal, inasmuch penalty was asked for. He submitted that there was no foundation in law which made it on offence on the part of the Union of employers to encourage members to defeat the force of an award, the charge in short being that the Union encouraged its membeis not to pay the minimum. Apart from the law of arbitration, there was no obligation on the part of any employer to employ any persons except by virtue of a contract r>etween the employer and employee. He contended that there was nothing in the Arbitration Act which made it compulsory for any employer to continue in hisr employment any man. That if an act be lawful it could not become unlawful by reason of motive or intent, no matter if the motive were a bad one; and, further, that unless persons inviting other.) to perform such an act did it for the purpose of inciting them to do an injury they were not answerable in any action for their conduct. Coming to the particular cases, it was alleged that the D.S. Company committed a 'breach of the award by discharging men, this being a charge of an unlawful act by reason that it had a particular and an intended effect, j That was the substance of the information. He asked whether the discharge of the men was legal or illegal, and said upon tin; answer to that depended the finding of the Court. He submitted tlint apart from the Arbitration Act., it could not be said there had been a breach of the law, and that an employer could discharge an employee, no matter how malicious the motive might be. His Honour said that in common law there was nothing to prevent an employer from locking out all his men, or to prevent men from striking, but he asked if Mr Campbell said that under the New Zealand Act there was nothing to prevent nn employer from locking his men out. Mr Campbell said that he did not propose to make his argument a hair's breadth wider than was necessary. His Honour said that if Mr Campbell would rather not express on opinion, the Court certainly did not want him to. It might be necessary for the Court in the present case to lay down a general proceeding, and if they found it necessary it would be their duty to do so. It might certainly be of assistance to the Court if the matter were treated by counsejl from a general point of view, but be did not ask them to do so. - Mr Campbell said he would do so. He

contended that an employer's right to employ or. discharge whom he jjeased was not affected by the New Zealand Arbitration law, while a dispute was not pending. If it was comended that the Court bad power to declare that an employer should continue to employ workmen during the currency of an award then he was prepare;! to dispute absolutely any power of the Ccurt to make any such provision, because it would be fundamentally opposed to the British law and the rights of an employer. Even if such powers were conferred on the Court by the exact wording of the statute he would contend that such power did not exist; no such powers were intended to be conveyed by the Legislature. Mr*Co-ter said the charge did not within its four come— disclose an offence. He also held uiat the evidence had iwt shown any offence had been committed. In dismissing any man the employers were simply what the law entitled them to do. They said to the employees—"We cannot X"" 6 you the wages fixed by the Court; therefore, we cannot keep you in our employment-" As to the information against the Employers' Union, nothing was done at the meeting to disregard or defeat the award. Mr Tyson's application was enough to stagger tiny person accustomed to the administration of the law. It was practically to declare a certain thing a breach, and asking the infLiotion of a penalty for the prior commission of such a breach. This application, so far as it asked for the imposition of a penalty, could not be upheld.