FURNITURE TRADE.

Evening Star, Issue 14888, 29 May 1912, Page 9

FURNITURE TRADE.

ALLF.GKD .BREACHES OF AWARD. Before .Mr J. I\. Bartholomew at the' Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon the following case, which is of more than ordinary interest to furniture- manufac-, hirers, \<rnn heard ; ! Walter Newton, inspector of factories, ' proceeded against dames John Marlow to recover £2O as penalties for breaches of the furniture trades award, these alleged infringements being that during November, .December, 191.1, January, February, and March, this year, tho respondent did employ James John Alarlow. jun., as an apprentice to the cabinet making trade without having indentured him, and that during the same months the respondent did employ a greater proportion of apprentices "in tho same trade than one to every three journeymen, contrary to tho term's of the award.—.Mr Newton aaid that to wards the end of last year the defendant desired to put his son to the eabinetmaking trade. At that time. Mr Alarlow had in his employment five journeymen and three apprentices, and it was pointed out by the department to the defendant that he could not engage any more apprentices j to that trade. There was some argument between the department and defendant in regard to his son getting a position differ-; out from that occupied by any other boy. Mr Newton here put into court am inter- i prefation of the point under dispute, the Arbitration Court's finding being that to' all intents and purposes an employer's son : ranked with other boys, and had to be indentured. This position was accepted to sow* extent, by Mr Marlow. who arranged > to indenture, his bov to the trade of chairmaking. The defendant, however, had employed his sou at cabinetmakhig, j and had thus committed two breaches of the award.—lnspector Hollows deposed that Mr Marlow had told him that he in- j tended to teach the boy cabinet-making, I that ho had employed him at that trade, j and that it wan the custom to do so.- • Inspector Newton also gave evidence.— Walter J. Ruston, president of the. Furniture Trades Union, fa id that it was thn custom to look upon ehairmaking, cabinetmaking, upholstering, and fmich polishing as separate trades. He admitted to Mr Marlow that in the shop wherein he was employed an upholsterer, who was an employer, also did frerteh polishing. Mr Alarlow said that ho wanted to apprentice ins son to the furniture trade, and to teach him the trade. He (the speaker) had been indentured to that trade himself, and claimed to have mastered furniture-making. Ine department had been very fair to him, and had offered to drop tho case, if he would promise to keep his son exclusively to tho branch of the trade to which he had been indentured. Ho could not see his way clear to put a bar in front of the progress of his boy, who would have to take his (Mr Marlow's) plaoo soma dav. It had always been his custom to give all bids in his shop a smattering of both branches.—Evidence was given" by Chris turn Hans Christian, Charles Henry Hayward (who gave it as his opinion, that in order to produce the best makers of chairs it was necessary to give chairmakera some experience in cabinetmakimgi. Berthold Nees (who said thai, prior to 10 days ago it. was the custom in his firm to indenturo apprentices to eabinetmaking to teach them different 'branches. He did cot consider that the branches were separate trades).—Mr Marlow, in the course of his evidence, eaid that in no sense of the word was lie- ov.adi.ag the award. In hi< shop tho men were .largely interchangeable.—His Worship said that as tho case was of considerable importance to boih sides_ ho would take time to consider his j decision.