ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LVII, Issue 155, 3 July 1899, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

♦ i (Before Mr. Justice Edwards.) A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held to-day, Mr. Justice Edwards presiding, associated with Mr. Thompson representing the masters and Mr. Slater for tho industrial unions. The first case dealt with was an application by the Tailors' Industrial Union of Workers for tho enforcement of an award against the firm of Berry and Orr. His Honour questioned the right of Mr. D. Milligan to appear on behalf of Messrs. Berry and Orr, he not beinj' a member of the Bar or of the respondent firm. Mr. Milligan said that Mr Orr himself was present, but had giver, him written authority to appear for Lis linn becauso he was more familiar with the matters in dispute. After confer once with the other members of tht Court, his Honour said he was not inclined to allow persons entirely unquali lied to appear as counsel, but, without creating a precedent, he would stretch a point in so far aa to permit Mr. Milligan to put or answer any questions. Mr. F. Rodger, who appeared for the Tailors' Workers' Union, addressed tho Court, submitting tho reasons for enforcing the industrial award in regard to the paying for the stitching of ticket pockets on coats. He alleged that Berry and Orr had failed to comply with the terms of the award in respect to ticket pockets. It was admitted by Berry and On that they had sometimes paid for thf stitching of ticket pockets for sao coati at the rate of half-an-hour. Mr. Rodger, continuing, submittec that the award applied to all pockets, and ho alleged that Berry and Orr had, in stitching pockets, deducted (for machining) more than the one hour allowed in tbe Jog. This was also admitted. Me Milligan said he was prepared to produce evidence from the majority of employers in tho city that the custom was always to distinguish between ticket pockets and ordinary full-sized pockets, and only 6d was allowed for ticket pockots. His Honour— lf that was the case, why was it not put down in. the log t Mr. Milligan was proceeding to explain that he had pointed it out at the conference between the employers and workers when 1 * his Honour said he could not take any cognisance of what was said or understood at the conference. The question was what had been written down. He thought it pretty plain that whatever the masters meant they hnd written down that they were going to pay for each pocket over two as for cvi hour's work, and, that being ao, they would havo to abide by it, Mr. Mililigan pointed out that in their attitude in this matter Berry and Orr did not stand alone. They were acting h\ accordance with a resolution of the Master Tailors' Union. His Honour said that this had nothing to do with Jhe preseut issue before the Court. Of course, if the master tailors had -resolved on a. breach of the agreement that was another "matter. Mr. Milligan said he ojnly desired to show that Berry and Orr"'' did not stand alone. The pockots put in partly by hand and partly by machine were not provided for by tho log. His Honour — Tho question is whether you have paid for these ticket pockets as for every ordinary pocket. Mr. Milligan — No, out His Honour— Well, then, it is perfectly plain you have committed a breach of tho agreement. Mr. Milligan went on to explain a difference with regard to ticket pockets and ordinary pockets, but his Honour said all this was besido the question, and was simply beating tho air. He would have to ask Mr. Rodger (for tho Workers' Union) to produce evidence. Un another occasion he would insist upon tho parties being represented !\y legally qualified counsel— then th* Court might understand matters. * Air. Eodget then called as a witness

t>ftvid Milligan, cutter for Berry and Orr, who deposed that he paid 6d lor ticket pookets. By the Court— Witness only paid 6d because the log provided that ticket pockets were to bo paid for at the rate of half-an-hour when, made entiroly l.y hand. That was bis principal teuton ; but, even supposing tho pocket wis worth Is, ho was entitled to make a icduction because it was an extra pocket. , Tho witness pointed out a part of the log which he alleged entitled him to make such reductions. After further discussion, Mr. Milligui said that had ho occasion to make a coat with such pockets as that concerned in this application ho might not havo paid more than at tho rate of half-an-hour ; but, as ho had not made such coat pookets—except partfy by machnery — he submitted no breach of the agreement had been committed. His Honour — Then I havo to consider if that constitutes a breach of tho agreement or nor.