ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXII, Issue 112, 8 November 1906, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

! TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings at 10.30 a.m. to-day. BUTCHERS' DRIVERS. In the case for enforcement of the clause of the drivers' award concerning preference to unionists, brought against the Banks Co-operative Meat Company, Mr. Myers appeared for the company and, Mr. Hally was for the Labour Department. Mr. Myers contended that inasmuch, as G. W. Banks, from whom, the company acquired the business, -was not cited before tie Court when the making of an award for drivers was under consideration, he was not liable, and therefore the company was not bound. The President joined issue. 1^ wav that a person not cited was not bound by an award, but the decision ofl the court on the point made It, clear that the, award bound Bubsecuieni parties. If a man or company entered into business hts or it came within the terms of; the award. Mr. Myers then, contended that, there Avas a_ve£y good reason why Iftr., Banks was not cited, and that was thso his business more properly came undei? the butchers' award provisions." "!Thp company was in similar case. It was, matter "of fact that there was op ques^ tion of wages involved, for the companjj paid more than the minimum wage prescribed by the drivers' award. The casp, was peculiar, for the men whom the company employed to drive their carts nrUjStt be men skilled, in the butcher's feade. "~ AU-. .Slater interjected that; there -wai» no provision in the butchers' aw^rd con*, cerning drivers. Continuing, Mr. Myers said thai tha company was not engaged in any. industry of driving. He put ib that the maty concerning whom, the charge, was brought was properly concerned In tho butcher's business , he had to handle the carcases with a butcher's skill, and a man who had no such knowledge would be likely] to damage the carcase. Mr. Hally made' the point that threo similar firms did business in Dunedinjy. smd^were classed under * the carters* l ' award. Evidence was called. Isaac Sykes, manager of the company, gave eyidencar that practical butchers were necessary for the casting work of the company. There was; " a knack in handling beef quarters, and if an ordinary driver was put to the work he was likely to put the meat on the floor instead of on tho hooks. The firm was one of whplesal* butchers, and it supplied joints 'to* retailers. These joints had to be cut up fthe drivers. Witness paid two of hi» vers £2 10s } tlie othefa^receiyed £3 12s 6d. , -••'-» Cross-examined by Mr. Hally, the wit* ness said he did not suggest that a firstclass butcher was necessary for the work, though of course he would employ' one 'if he was willing to accept tho work." Ifc waa true that the carting firm of M'Ewei and Carter (which was subject to tlia drivers' award) carried mutton for the Gear Company, but that company provided its own men for the handling oi beef quarters. Arthur Gadsby, wholesale and retail butcher, said he 'delivered to retailers. He employed a butcher to drive. A' man who was not a butcher could not handle beef properly. James Joseph Moore, works manager for the Wellington Meat Export Cjuipany, said he generally employed in hva delivery carts men who had a good Knowledge of the butchery trade. At times he had had to engage ordinary carters from town, but on these occasions other meu had to be sent to do part 'of the work which a skilled driver did without assistance. In addressing the court, Mr. Myers said it might be that his clients did not come under either award ; but if tKafc was so there were means to overcome the trouble. It was never intended that these men should come' under the drivers* award. Mr. Brown interjected'-that if the com-pa-ny was made to observe the drivers 1 award in this respect it would mean»the» fixing of a minimum wage ten shillings less than the men now receive*}. Mr. Hally addressee"! the "court, saying • that 'this class of work was done satisfacs torily by some -firms who employed no special drivers. Munt, Cottrell and Co. carried frozen mutton from the shops to the ship's side Avithout h avn ig hutcjier • drivers. Mr. Brown said that was not an analogous case. Frozen Jneat was not hurt by dropping, it ; it only made a hole in the floor. The court intimated that the casfr would be dismissed. Reasons wouldi.4)& given in writing ; Mr. Myers j Will the court deal with the question of costs when giving judgment? The President: Parliament has done that for us! Mr. Myers: I was not aware of that; arp no costs allowed? The President : No costs against the in> fpector. A TAILOR?" TROUBLE. The Labour Department (represented by Yir. Aldridge) took action agaiifcfc Cluistopker Smith, of Cuba-street, for abreach of the tailors' a^ard. Mr! Myers iippcrcd for the respondent. The cas*" was brought under clause 7 of the tailors' award, whith provides that all made to order work be done in the shop of the employer for whom the work was performed, and shall not be taken home by any tailor. Provision is also made in thu award that any suit in which a try-on is made shall be deemed to ba tailor-made. Evidence was given by % witness named K. J. Johannsen, nn en-gine-diivei, that he was sent to C. Smith's 1o get a tailor-made suit. He was sent b\ Mr. Baker, secretary of the Tailors' Union. It was to be a tailor-made 6uit, and when witness called at the shop later on the coat was fitted on. Chalk marks were made on it. There ..were no bul» tons on it. It was to cost £3 10s. 12 two men swore tlu>t the "buttons were on, witness would bay that he did not see them. It was admitted that tho suit was not' nude on the premises, but 'at a local fac« toi}-. Evidence was given by ttfo employees- of the firm named Broadhurst and Berry lespectively. that' when 'the cost was tried on by Johannsen it was' finished m all respects. The firm notified in its window "Suits made to measure, £3 10s." It did not undertake to 'supply "tailormade." Had refused such orders, for ho 'mow there were men going round trying to trap them. When he chalked tho suit it was just to soe if tho buttons were shaight. not to indicate alterations that were needed. Evidence as to trade custom was given by several witnesses. Mr. Myers submitted that the court should' be guided in coming to a decision by the evidence as to what the trad* meaning of "fitting on" \yos. This suil wa.s not "tailor-made," nor was any in), do rtaking given that it would be." The?^ ' was no "fitting on" within the meaniugf of the clause of the awaTd. '■' Mr. Aldridge contended that this waa cleurly if- "bespoke" order. Tlie .respondent's witnegs-cs admitted jUiat jf alterations had beeu needed to make the suit .fit they would havo been made. Therefore the suit' \vas admittedly "tailor-made." i Tfeere vrgre..twee^ kagjh&_eshibiiisil io Jtho

windows, and prices for suits were pot on them. Questioned by Mr. Brown, the witness Berry said that tiie cost of making such, a suit as Johannsen's in a tailor's shop would be £2 10s. The factory cost was £1 4s 6d. Questioned by Mr. Slater, the, witness admitted that the suit might be mode for £1 10s or £1 12 6d in a tailor's shop where only girl labour M r as employed. Before the court gave its decision Mr. Myers raised the point whether it was competent for the court to penalise the present respondent, seeing that he was not an employer of the class of labour concerned by the award. Mr. Slider said that the man who did the measuring and the fitting on must be considered^ as an operative tailor. The President said he was inclined to agree with Mr. Slater. In giving judgment, the President said; tha* all goSSs sold as £t»ikH*-made" were bespoke work. The court did not propose to base its decision on the question as to whether these goods were sold as "tailor-made." The evidence was contradictory on that point. But as to "fitting on," the court bad no donbt that the garment was fitted on- It had been given in evidence that "fitted <>n" was a trade term referring to fitting on in a certain incomplete condition, but- the terms of the section were in plain English, and fitting on had been a term in Tise br tl»e court, in other centres for lonie rime past, and lately introduced to WeHingvon. This particular fitting on was with a view to having alterations made if necessary. The intention of the court in making its award had been to make a clear disrincteon between "chart" orders and <k t«ilor-made." In this inatance a breach had taken place, and respondent -would be fined £5. OTHER TADLOBS' TROUBLES. An enforcement of the tailors' award against the Drapery Importing Company (D.I.C) was sought by .the Labour Department. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Lewey, as counsel, explained that by oversight some tailoring orders were given out while the tailoring business of the firm was being reconstituted. •It was the result of a fire that occurred something onrer a year ago, and it was the company's intention to make provision for carrying out its tailoring work under its own roof. On behalf of the labo\ir Department. Mr. Hally submitted that the union regarded the offence ao a serious one, and the inspector concurred in this " view. The practice had obtained ever since the company got into its new premises, and the company's manager had been warned against the practice. The president said that a company of the standing of this company ought to have been the first to tcrapulouslv observe the award. A penalty of £5 "would be inflicted. A similar charge against Duncan and Macintosh, of Manners-street, was met with a -similar penalty, and the president expressed & hope that the court would not be troubled by any more such failures to obey ■terms of its" awards. On behalf of Walsh and -Co., Mr. Devine said that his client •waa unaware that he was breaking an award. When the inspector informed him of hie fault he immediately ceased to offend, and even left a 6uit incomplete. The president said that when the Award was being made, it was discussed ior two days in court, aiid tailors must hare nad cognisance of it. Particulars irerv publisned. The court could make mo differentiation; a penalty of £5 vould be inflicted. BOY LABOUR LACHES. An enforcement of the drivers' award against Joseph Andrews concerned the. employment by respondent of a lad under eighteen, years of age to drive a dray. The lad was respondent's son. 'Warning was given, but the offence was> continued. A fin* ot £5 was inflicted. Charles Beynon was charged with a breach of the drivers' award in that he employed his son to drive a dray, giving him 12s a week and his keep, the son being under the age of eighteen years. Ulr. Lewey, counsel for respondent, said that the offence had not been persisted in. A penalty of £5 was inflicted. (Left sitting.)