ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19698, 27 October 1927, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

DUNEDIN SITTINGS CONCLUDED The Arbitration Court —His Honor Mr Justice Frazer (president), Messrs W. Scott and A, L. Monteith (assessors) —concluded its Dunedin sitting tliis morning. , INTERPRETATION SOUGHT. The court was asked for an interpretation of the Clothing Trade Award relating to tho employment of women and girls engaged in pressing. Mr G. H. Lightfoot, officer in charge of tho Labor Department, stated that tho clause of the award concerned in the application was:—“(a) Pressers shall be paid £4 7s 6d a week (2s per hour); (b) No woman or girl shall bo called upon to do pressing off of coats, rests, trousers, mantles, and heavy garments.” The statement of facts in the application set out that Taylor’s City Dye Works, a party to the award, employed two females as dyers and cleaners; that those females were occupied principally in pressing men’s clothing, ladies’ overcoats, and other heavy garments that had been cleaned or dyed; that they used heavy household electric irons for pressing women’s garments, and that occasionally light women’s overcoats, trousers, and vests were done by them on account of tho possibility of soiling if pressed off against heavy, dark garments' in the men’s room; that one of the females received £2 15s a week and the other (who started recently) £2 a week. Mr Slater (who appeared for the union) claimed that the award was perfectly clear. It stated that no woman or girl was allowed to press certain classes of garments. Yet it was admitted that they wore called upon to press vests and cricket trousers, and the excuse was made that they had to do these in order to keep them from getting soiled in among the men’s dark garments. The speaker considered it was nonsense to offer an excuse like that.

Mr Cookson (who appeared for the company) said the position was that the award covered the manufacture of garments and the pressing of new garments. It was contended that there was a wide distinction between pressing of new and of cleaned garments. The pressing of new garments entailed the pressing down of the seams, which, was the work the award was designed to cover. When a garment was cleaned the so*uns were not seriously disturber!. After cleaning, it was merely a matter of ironing and smoothing out the material. Mr Slater repeated that lie considered the award was_ perfectly plain. He had had experience of for twenty years, and was of the opinion that it was more difficult to press a cleaned article than a new one. His Honor said it seemed that everything turned on the meaning of “pressing off.” Inspector Lightfoot said the difficulty with respect to the application was that there were some big laundries doing the class of work mentioned that wore not parties to the award. His Honor intimated that Hie court would consider its decision. APP.LICAT fON REFUSED. C. H. Brook (Mr W. D. Taylor) applied for exemption from the closing hours in the provisions of tho shop assistants’ award. Mr Taylor said that the applicant was sixty-threo years of age, and had a shop in Lower Hanover street. He was carrying on business in an isolated position, his income being about £ll a week. He had been in business about four years. Shortly before the opening of the Exhibition twenty-eight 'houses in the locality had boon demolished, and this had 'deprived tho applicant of twenly-eight customers. “In such applications as this,” said His Honor, “ tho court has found it necessary to he guided by some general principle, and in this case the inspector's report is against the applicant.’’ His Honor said that if the shop were quite isolated and did not _ interlero with anyone else the application would ho granted, but this particular locality contained a number of small shops, and tho only thing the court could do was lo refuse all applications from shops in this area. It would bq quite legitimate, however, for the applicant to alter tho nature of his business a little so that his principal income was not derived from the grocery trade, and then lie could apply to the magistrate for exemption under the Shops and Offices Act. Tho application was refused. OTHER MATTERS. The New Zealand Express Company was struck out as a party to the dominion coachworkers’ award. .Messrs Goodman and Brainier, Ltd., Avoro added as a party to the tailorcsscs’ award.