ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12229, 26 March 1903, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

AWARD IN THE TAILORING TRADE.

AUCKLAND EMPLOYEES FINED. Yesterday the clerk of awards (Mr. R. Goring Thomas) received a copy of the judgment of the Court of Arbitration (Mr. Justice Cooper, President) in the case brought by the Auckland Tailors' Union at the recent sittings in Auckland, against Mr. Geo. Fowlds for a breach of the award. When the case was before the Court Mr. J. C. Martin appeared for the union and Mr. Cotter for the defendant. The judgment now received stated that the facts, which had been admitted, were that at the time the agreement was signed Mr. Fowlds was carrying on, in connection with his drapery and clothier's business, a tailor's department, in respect of which he was admittedly under the terms of the industrial agreement. During the currency of the agreement he sold his tailoring branch. Since this sale he had taken "chart orders," which had been made up at a factory not owned by Mr. Fowlds, and separate from his premises. It was the practice for Mr. Fowlds to measure the persons for whom such orders were taken, to enter such measurements on a chart, and to try the garments on at his shop before their completion, and then to mark in the customary manner adopted by tailors any alterations necessary in order to obtain a proper fit, and to return such partially-made garments to the factory for completion. The question for decision was whether in so doing Mr. Fowlds hod infringed clause 7 of the agreement, which provided that all garments for which orders are taken must be made on the premises connected therewith, or at a workroom belonging to the employer. The Court thought that the fact that the garments had been tried on and necessary alterations marked thereon while the garments were in process of making, took them out of the category of ''chart orders," and brought the work within the class of " orders" referred to in clause 7 of the agreement, and that, therefore, these orders had admittedly been made up in a workroom unconnected with the shop or premises of the defendant, and not belonging to him, that a breach of the agreement had been committed. Clause 12 of the agreement provided that the minimum penalty for a breach of the agreement should be £5. The Court held that the case was sufficiently met by the minimum penalty, and ordered the defendant to pay the costs to the union, professional costs being allowed at £2 2s.