AUCKLAND FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11565, 23 April 1903, Page 5

AUCKLAND FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) AUCKLAND, April 22. Tb-T" Arbitration Court resumed tho hearing of tho fumiturv irado depute to-day, when couoerl for the appiksante replied , to tiio arguments of Messrs Campbell and Cotter, council for tba respondents. Mr Tole sail vhut it. was idle to divcn&s ihd position ;;: common law. Thsro could *jo no dispute about that law. What they two considering was the Arbitration Act-, and the Court was not concerned with English cases. Tho AibiiuuSott Court made ita .•iw.-ud*, ;i".d could cn:ori\> them. Ho <levAcd that lap proceeding p..u..\ik. of tho nature o: criminal Jn the first p! tee, t!it> iou-se of u<;tion wae ou application, not an information, and the ptiuiky was r< an a able by ordinary civil uisauf. It w«s argued that there waa nothing in tlic , Arbitration Act tossy that an empiover must, employ nini. Thai opened up a great constitutional question. The Court had not power to wy tliat -any men could dv>niand tniployiiKiit fivuj any f;ictor\-, or could ('•oniiiud ts) l>? retained if there was r.ot woik for thvui, but tihore w.ns pow.T for tho Court to fay under cortxiin circumstances, wliicli wore alleged in this cose, that, mrii wero not to be discliarjjed. The Court. t«uld not s;iy thut these men should not b.> tunjod out, bicanse tlwy deeluied to rniiun at tho former mininjum wngi\ intut-ad of a.a advanced wage to which t-iKy wt-ra entitled under iho award. Tho award could t>ny that th« mon were to ba paid a certain w.igc, bshl the Court could cniujw ;!i:il ;iward. There was no reason for thy. ;■ ,!spc :i:ijon or diMiiissul of the me» btyoud that they were, cntitkd to tho ivdvar.cvd wago, It had bfen argttfd t'.at co breach was uisclosed. lie oombaitcd that, and siiiii that thty hitd alkged that tiio award lixed a certain \rago, and that tiio empicm-i.s ]md tumod out ooaq>6teilt men, and that, constituted a coiitravontion of the award. Mr Tule contended tint the employer w:'« not alwnj-s a judge as to vrhet her a man was competent or xiot. In some of 'the present ius<.s th? employer w«<s a judi-io, ineevernl ia*it«u«e* they had given terlificatcH of oompeteacy, by which tliey Wcr<»> bound, and they tx>u3d not eny when a new award cauie into force tliut these m:n were no longsr cocipetent.

. '„.. ... ARGUMENT BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT.

Hits Honour asked Mr Tole how long an employer was bound to keep fully competent men in his employ?

Mr Tole said tlr.it under ordinary circumstanws ho waa not "bound to keep him on at nil if lie did not. want him, but he was bound to keep him on if th« wage was axed at Is 3d per hour, instead of the former minimum of Is Id, if 3ic wanted the services of the men.

His Honour said that he asked the question beeaua* in the New South Wales Act there was ti clause which met wit?i the preset difficulty, in an employer being li&bta u> a penalty of £20 for dismissing a maa bc«;iw.' of an award'of the Court.

Mr Tole fctiid' that he was dealing with .1 bou'y of men, not one man, and it proved that the men were wanted, tiieir benches bijing icndy. and tlwir work being reedy for them. If what had been <lone in tho present ■circumstances were legal, then the whole Act v»s iwrlov., «i:d the i-oor.et it woe dtstroyed the better. Regarding tho Employero' Union, Mr Tole taid that were it proved that ths D.S.C. and Tonson Garlick Company were liable, then the Employers' Union was liable in the same way. Kis Honour said that there was no doubt that if any -member of the Union committed a breach with the assistance of, the Union, then the Union wae liable.

Mr Tole snid that nothing could vbe etronger than the evidence of the interference of the Union to nullify the nwum of the Court aud to assist the employers in resisting it. Hβ contended that tliis interference was an alleged act. He confidently submitted that-the olmrgee amply proved* a breach, and that there wns mnple evidence in support. The uriiole thing was a scheme of the deepest kind to ouro ijieii from I heir employment, and ullilnsitely to lender the award and the law nn nbVioHitely d?ad letter. The whole of the arbitration law depended on the decision of the Cotirl..

Mr J. C. Jink-in thon addressed the Court on behalf of the Union. He submitted lh»t ;inv plan by which the effect of an awnrri wa.s destroyed bo that th« men would be piiid a lesser rate than the Cnwrt prescribed, would be a contravention of the award. He would ask tho Court whether there hud Ixkui anhoncet discharge of nwn no longer wanted, or wee it a pi an to pay to men whom the' Court hftd ordpri-d to be pnid Is 3d nn hour the rate r.f Iβ Id. If the Conrt held tho litter xh-\y then they would hold that there hud been ;i '(Heidi of the award. The Court r.xun lave inherent jurisdiction to sco t!tat the wants of any body did not nullify the which'the Court had endeavoured i>l decree, simply because tiiofie e£bi did not come within the specific -words of'the law by which the Court was c6nstituted. Mr 'Cotter said that the replies to tha arguments of the respondents proceeded on an i'Volui'j fallacy, and that, fallacy tvM that the Court had not said that any par- ! ticular man writ to. reoeive a minimum but ilmt . v;ry cabinetmaker was to n<eiv<? to the ui::iii:ium nnlese he applied for a permit to work for lesfl- . The question of his Honour to Mr Tolc, tie to how ;: ic.ng «n employer watt to continue a man in liis employment, struck at the root of the whole matter. Mr Tole had: dawered fo ]on" as he wanted him and had work for him. The firsi, pirt of the answer correct, but there w&u no tribunal which could wiy whether an employer luid work for any 'eniplovec or not. The referencu of his' Honour* to the clause in the hew South Wales Act answered the complaint*. The Court had not power to «steed the orations of Section 100, limited by Section 19 of the amending Act, by enlarging the time during ivhkii employers must nob discharge nu-n. Mr Campbell then called James Morrison, general manager of the D.S.C., on behalf of the respondent. Witness *t*t*d that, prior to February 28th he interviewed Mr Finlayson, ioreman of tho cabmc> making department, and Mr Garry, foreman of the furnishing department, asking them to supply a ikrt of men whom tiiey thought he could not profitably employ «6 1« 3d per hour. A number of names were •supplied by Mr Finlaywm, two of whom had been earning the minimum wage. \X&iie*s iold ak Xi'i&layßon that the** men, were- not to go to work until t&ey received permits to work at their former caU«. Witness β-iid ho had ao knowledge se to •whether the men bdooged to the union or not. Mr Vaughan, toreiuan of tlie cpikolstery department, oko reported on the men who coald not -profitably earn Is 3d per hour, two men feting discharged d-uring February. The company employed 64 or 65 • hands. On M&roh, 2nd witness told the men suspended they could not go to work until they goti permit* to "work at their former wages. Mr Tj-eoo. eecKtaty to the unwn, Baw •vritneaa on the Monday, and eaid that the ni£n need not nave left, work at all, witness replying that they could retami if an undertaking were given that, he wae not committing a breach of the award. Two of the men discharged came to witflce*. one being willing to take lower wage*, bu* staiing iJiat he -had been refused a permit. Mr Campbell—How do you account for the fact tiiat you could pay a minimum wage on February 28th, and not on March 2nd? _ Witneea—"lt wae a matter of profit. Wecould bay cheaper than we could make with t-heso .hands a& toho bcreaeed rate.' Contiimiug. witness eaid he aoted cc ha did on hie own initiative, vrithoatconference with liie «imployej*. All that he had done> wae done before the Employem" Union knew anything ahout it. Hβ ako washed to obey the award, and that waain ha mind a* th& time. Jn«. Brown, manapng AavAor of toe D.«.C, exatttined hv .Mr Campbell, dried that, brfow-Feiwuwj 23th h* h*d * eonvereation with Mr Mcrriaoo, «wl they de-

eided to ligidly carry out ibe asrard, but to employ no improfitablo men. He hnd no conversyition \rhh any oth<T <>mp!oTer on the oiattcr until they c-tllcd together l>y Mr Tregear. They relied on the judgment of tha foremen in inp the hands. F. H. Templar, secretary to the Ftuiiittire Employer*' Union, stated that th>> meeting of <th« Union after the rkadiock was on ilarch 6tjh. Witnew heard a good d<?<rl of talk about th« dieput*? from oor«ide sonrc**, and thereupon suggested to Air Morrison thai h« should convene a meeting co that tht* trade might bs fully oognijviat of what wae gobag on. After other witnosecs had been heard, G. C. Gorlick. managing director of rh" Ton*on, Garlick Company. .«aid it wss veoal to reduce hanrltt about Fc-bniary, a" 1 " ithis etep "would have been taken even if <he "wages 'had not be*n On Ffbruary 28th he instructed bi.s fon-nwn to ivtain all profitaWo men, and allow- the othore to go. This was his «ole for his action ; lif> a<tod eo'ely on his «\vv. account, and not, after cocsnltation vilh o.;hcr emplfrverx. Hβ did not know •uh."th»r the men discharged were unionists or not. This concluded the evidence for tho employers. Judgment win be siwn on Saturday.