THE AUCKLAND FURNITURE TRADE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIX, Issue 13108, 23 April 1903, Page 6

THE AUCKLAND FURNITURE TRADE.

ARBITRATION COURT PROCEED INGS. [Per Prkss Association.] AUCKLAND,- April 22.

The Arbitration Court resumed its hearing of the furniture trade dispute to-day, when counsel for the applicants replied to the arguments of Mr Campbell and Mr Cotter, counsel for the respondents. Mr Tole said that it was idle to discuss the. position at common law. The law which thev were considering was the Arbitration Act, and the Court was not concerned with English cases. The Arbitration Court made its awards and could enforce them. He denied that the proceedings partook of the nature of criminal proceedings. In the first place, the course of action was application, not an information, and the penalty was recoverable by ordinary civil means. ' It was argued that there was nothing in the Arbitration Act to sav that an. employer must employ.men. That'opened up a great constitutional question. The Court had not power to say that any men could demand employment from any factory, or could demand to be retained'if there was not work for them, but there was power for the Court to say under certain circumstances, which were alleged in this case, that men were not to be discharged. The Court could not say that these men should not be turned away because thev declined to remain at the former minimum wage instead of ike advanced wage to which they were entitled under the award. The award could say that men were to bo paid a certain wage, and the Court could enforce that award.. There was no reason for the suspension or dismissal of the men beyond that they Were- entitled to an advanced wage. It had been argued that no breach was disclosed. He combated that, and said that they had alleged that the award fixed a certain wane, and, that the' employers had turned out competent men, and that constituted a contravention of the award. If they took the converse of the case and supposed that the employees of the firm left at the time the award came into force, not being satisfied,, the Court would hold that there was a breach of award. . Mr Tole contended that the' employer was not always the judge as to whether a man was competent or not. In some of the present cases the employers were judges* because in several instances they had given certificates of competency by which they were bound, and they could not say when a new award came into force that these men were no longer competent. His Honor asked Mr Tole how long an employer was bound to keep a fully competent man in his employ. Mr Tole said that under ordinary circumstances lie was not bound to keep him on ah all of he did not want him, but be was bound to keep him on if the wage was fixed at Is 3d instead of the former minimum of Is Id if he wanted the services,of

His Honor said that he asked the question because in the New South Wales Act thpre was a clause which met the present difficulty, an employer being liable, to a penalty of £2O for dismissing a man because of an award of the Court.

Mr Tole said that he was dealing with a body of men, not one man, and it proved that the men were wanted, their benches being ready and their work being ready for them. If what had been done in the present circumstances were legal, then the whole Act was useless. The siooncr it was destroyed the better. Regarding the Employers' Union, Mr Tole said that were it proved that the D.S.C. and the Tonson Garliek Company were liable, then the Employers' Union was liable in the same. way. His Honor 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 was liable.

Mr Tole said that nothing could be stronger than the evidence of interference of. the Union to nullify an. award cf the Court, and to assist the employers in resisting it. He contended that this interference was an; illegal act. Ho confidently submitted that the charges were amply proved, and that there was ample evidence in support of the whole thing being a. scheme of the deepest kind to oust men from their employment, and ultimately to render the award'and the law absolutely a dead letter. The whole of the Arbitration law depended on the decision of the Court. Mr J. C. Martin then addressed the Court on behalf of • the Furniture Employees' Union. He submitted that any plan by which the c-ffact of an award was destroyed s>o that men would be paid a- lesser rate thaw the Court prescribed would be a contravention of the award. The Court would ask whether it was an honest discharge of men no longer wanted, or was it a plan to pay to men whom the Court had ordered' to be paid Is 3d an hour at the rate of Is Id? If the. Court held the latter view, then they would hold • that there had been a. breach of award. The Court must have inherent jurisdiction to see that any body did not nullify judgments which the Court had endeavoured to decree, simply because those acts* did not come, within the specific words of the law by which the Court was constituted.

Mi* Cotter said that the replies to the arguments of the respondents proceeded on an absolute fallacy, and that fallacy was that the Court had'not said that any particular man was to receive the minimum, wage, but that every cabinetmaker was to receive the minimum unless he applied for a permit to work for less. The question of his Honor to'Mr Tole as to how long an employer was to continue a man 1 in his employment struck at the root of the whole matter. Mr Tole had answered, "So long, as he wanted him and had work for him." The first part of the answer was correct, but there was no tribunal which could say whether an employer had work for any employee or not. The reference of his Honor to a clause in the New South Wales Act answered the complaints, because the New Zealand Legislature had expressly kept the penalty out of the Statute. He submitted that the Court was not allowed to pass by some award of pronouncement, what the* Legislature had kept within its own jurisdiction. The Court had not power to extend the operation' of Section 100, limited by Section 19, of the amending Act by enlarging the time during which employers must not discharge men. Mr Campbell then called James Morrison, general manager of the D.S.C. ,'on behalf of the.respondents. Witness stated that prior to Feb. 28 he interviewed Mr Finlayson, foreman of the cabinetmakiug department, and Mr Garry, foreman of the furnishing department, asking them ■ to supply- a list of men whom they thought he could not profitably employ at Is 3d per hour. A number of names were supplied by Mr Finlayson, two of whom had been earning the minimum wage. Witness told Finlayson that the men were not to go to work until they received permits to work at their former rates. Witness said that he had no knowledge as to whether the men belonged to the Union dr not. Mr Vauchan, foreman of the upholstery department, also reported on men who could not profitably earn Is 3d per hour, two men being, discharged. During February the company employed sixty-four or sixty-five hands. * On March 2 witness told the men suspended that they could not-go to work until they got permits to work at their former wages. Mr Tyson, secretary to the Union, saw witness on Monday, and said that the men need not have left work at all, 'witness replying that they could return if an undertaking' were given that he was; not committing a breach of award. Two of the men discharged came to witness, onebeing willing to take lower wages, but stating that' he had been refused a permit. Mr Campbell: How do you account for the fact that vou could pay the minimum on Feb. 28 and not on March 2? Witness: It was a matter of profit. We .could buy cheaper than. we could make with these hands at the increased rate. ; Witness acted as he did on his own initial

tive, without conference with his employers. All that he had done was done before the Employers' Union knew anything about it. Witness acted as he did so as to obey the award, and that- was in his mind at the time.

John Brown, managing' director of the D.S.C, examined by'Mr Campbell, stated that before Feb. 28 he had a conversation with Mr Morrison, and thej- decided to rigidly carry out the award, but to employ no unprofitable men. He had no conversation with any other employer on the matter until they were called together by Mr Tregear. They relied on the judgment of the foreman in discharging hands. P. H. Templar, secretary to the Furniture Employers' Union, stated that tho first meeting of the Union- after the deadlock was on March 6. Witness 1 " heard a good deal of talk about the dispute from outside sources, and thereupon, suggested to Mr Morrison that he should convene a meeting so that the trade might be fully cognisant of what was going on. After other witnesses had been heard, G. C. Garliek, managing; •■director of the Tonson,' Garliek Company, said that it was usual to reduce hands about February, and this step would have been taken even if the wages had not been increased. On Feb. 28 he instructed his foreman to retain all profit a bio men and allow the others to, go. This was his sole reason for his action. He acted solely on his own account, and not after consultation with other employers. , Tic did riot know whether the men discharged were Unionists or not.

This concluded the evidence for the employers. Judgment wilt be given on Saturday.