THE FURNITURE TRADE DEADLOCK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12252, 27 April 1903, Page 7

THE FURNITURE TRADE DEADLOCK.

THE ARBITRATION COURT'S DECISION. JUSTICE COOPER'S COMMENTS. i ALL the applications dismissed. 1 TeE judgment of the Court of Arbitration in respect to the applications for enforcement of the award of the Court, lodged against the Furniture Employers' Union and the Tonson Garlick Company and Direct Supply Company in respect to the deadlock ja the furniture' trade was delivered on Saturday morning. Mr. Justice Cooper (President) and Messrs. Brown and Slater were on the Bench. The Hon. J. A. Tole and Mr. J. C. Martin represented the applicants. Mr. T. Cotter and Mr. K. Campbell appeared for the Tonscu Garlick Company and the Direct Supply Company respectively, and they also jointly represented the employers' union. THE JUDGMENT. The written judgment, which was read by : the President, was prefaced by the following statement: — "The Court has, unfortunately, been unable to come to a unanimous decision on these matters, and the reasons I am about to read for the _ conclusions to which I, as President of this Court, have coma, are reasons for which I alone am responsible, and are not to bo considered as an expression of the opinion of tho other members of the Court." SUJfJIAHr OP FACTS. The circumstances leading up to the dispute, as detailed in evidence, were get forth by His Honor, the fact? being substantially as follows: — On February 19, 1903, the Court made an award in an industrial dispute, to which the Auckland United Furniture Trades Industrial Union of Workers and the Auckland Fursiture and Furnishing Trade Union of Employers and 49 individual -employers, companies and firms were parties. Under ■that award the minimum wage for.cabinetmakers, chair and frame makers, upholsterere and carvers was fixed at Is 3d per hour, and'that for polishers and turners at Is 2d per hour. Special .provision was made for the fixing of a lower rate of wages than the tninimum wage in respect of any worker who was unable to earn the prescribed minimum. Under -the former industrial agreement the jninimum wages for cabinetmakers, chairmakers, carvers and upholsterers were fixed at Is Id per hour, and for turners and polishers at Is Oid per hour. On February 28, 1503, 13 men working for the Tonson Garlick Company were suspended or dismissed, and four from the Direct Supply Company! and on March 6 a meeting of the employers' union, to which the two firms belonged unanimously decided to support this action! "'After the failure of efforts at an amicable "settlement the application against the two firms and the employers' union was filed by Mr. Tregear, and it was conceded by counsel for the employers' union that if a breach Of the award had been committed by either the Tonson Garlick Company or the Direct Supply Company, then the employers' union was also liable, that union being a party to the award, and having supported the action of the two firms named. THE POWERS OF TIIE CO GET, After referring to the terms of the applications lodged by Mr. Tregear, as registrar of industrial unions, against the Tonson Garlick Company and the Direct Supply Company, His Honor said: — Thq substantial question which has, in my opinion, to bo determined upon these a PJ>iicationr. is 0110 of fact, namely, * Do the facts given in evidence iu these proceedings establish that the discharge or suspension of those men was in consequence of a&d on account of and in disregard and evasion of the award V In other words, Have the defendants acted in contravention of the award ? In order to determine this question 4 propose to examine in detail the evidence adduced on both sides. And, first, I desire to state the' principles upon which the Court, in my opinion, ought to bo guided in determining matters before it. Under section 76 of the Act, ' the Court shall, in all matters before it, have full and exclusive jurisdiction, to determine the same in all respects as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit.' Under subsection 10 of section 77 it 'may accept, admit, and call for such evi- . dence as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit, whether strictly legal evidence or not,' and under subsection 3 of section 94, upon an application for the enforcement of an award, ' the Court may by order either dismiss the application or impose such penalty for the breach of the award as it deems just.' The effect of these sections is to give the Court in matters within its jurisdiction a very full and complete power. It must, however, in my opinion, exercise such Sower with judicial discretion, and it must determine tho matter before it, and especially when the object of the proceeding is the imposition of a penalty, upon the evi- , dence which has been adduced before it in the proceedings, and upon inferences which can be fairly and legitimately drawn from such evidence. Nor must it, extensive though its powers are, depart from that rule of natural justice that the onus of establishing a charge against an accused person rests upon the person making such charge. THE TOXSOX GAELICS CASE. "It appears from the evidence that when the award came into operation there were between 200 and 300 workers in the furniture trade within its provisions ; the numbers are variously stated by different witBesses at from 250 to 260. Of these, excluding wire mattress makers, who are not affected by tho award, about 110 were in the employment of the Tonson Garliok Company and 62 or 63 in the employment of the Direct Supply Company. A3 the proportion of aprentices. to journeymen permitted under the industrial agreement was one to three, and as in all probability that propor- , tion was substantially filled, we may assume of the 110 hands employed by the Tonson Garlick Company, from 35 to 40 were apprentices. The 'number of journeymen, including those who may be classed as ad- : mittedly unable to earn the minimum wage, in the employment of the company on Fefuuy 28, 1903, may therefore be stated at from 70 to 75. Of these men a number were admittedly unable to earn the minimum wage prescribed by the industrial agree- . ment, and counsel for the applicant ad- - mitted that the suspension or dismissal of f, this , class could not in any sense be considered to be in contravention of the award. With referonco to these men clause 9 of the 'industrial agreement provided ' that men 'who are considered unablo to earn tho minimum wage shall be paid such lesser sum as wall be decided upon by the foreman and a ; member of the union employed in such shop where the question is raised, and if they ■ cannot agree, then by an outside party, who M 'hall be mutually agreed upon by both 'lues.' ■ The agreement did not provide that tile permission to work for a lesser wage . thin the minimum be for a specific period, ' *?d the &war d having prescribed an entirely •wfierent mode for fixing the wages of those Unable ! to earn the minimum, and the agreement having been determined by the W&rd, the company were not, in my pinion, acting unreasonably in saying to fe f16!9 teen, ' Before we can give you further Employment you must . have your _ wage, . ■ •pin fixed, and in the manner prescribed by 7 1 0 award.' It is clearly shown by the evi■yWce adduced before us that the number of ... suspended or dismissed .who did not p/; x?? e thin this olass, and who were on February 28 receiving Is Id per : hour, . was %i >not more than 13. McKenzie, the company & foreman, states that there were 12, but the fe iv> supplied by the company to Mr. Tyson, :.K,We secretary for the workers*' union, -"is* ' oses the names of 13 such men, and the i. < yuoibei stated in the application for, en- j •• jWrsemant is thirteen. . The charge, there- ! against the Tonson Garliok Company ?¥ r ° WB itself to thisthat on the coming ? wto operation of tho award they suspended |„ 'missed 13 men claimed by the a PP}}' tn 7- k® competent men out ofJJ o **}, t,. men , competent and incompetent. : •a. r o ®' reviewed 'the avidence SPy en in ■' n « l he application against the Tit,.., Company, and went on to say: . All IIS on February 28, give subtially the same account ,ot : their .dismissa .timff 110 "' namely, that about midday Hf n that ■ day McKenzio, the foreman, to.d 2a n °?« not to start on- Monday morning ft' fir*, seeing him, and that no reason - fecul 3 -was given, an d that on going to the , P."ovi7 ,°B- Monday morning no work . mad. , .(° 'hem, no ' any further statement " 4 Mod j m y McKcnzic. . In my opinion, pipffH 6 * l of the.trouble that Bub?eauentlv, -ior MoT?* C ? used by the omission of Garbck Ifo urn 18 to tell tho men pl^ Theih? P&ny ha<l no further use for ; them. MSfenw I draw from this ie that, while WiWJ® °° nsid er<6d that he could not find • ' SSf?' employment for these particular 3d an ' tour ' he was still open to ggfeftwl it tb,oy oould obtain, permission *rate.''111 as to the competency or ■ 'mSt men discharged was sum\v;:ku th» correspondence which had Mr. Tyson -{secretary ot the >«Uon), and Mr. Templar (secretary ,

of the employers' union) was quoted. Hia Honor then proceeded :"" In my opinion the evidence taken as a whole and the necessary and legitimate inferences I am entitled-to draw from it, establish: " (1) That at the time of the coming into operation of the award the company, partly owing to the arrival of the slack season, and partly owing to the increased minimum wage prescribed under the award, considered it advisable, as a matter of business, to reorganise their staff, and in reference to those who had been admittedly unable to earn the minimuai wage prescribed under the industrial agreement, considered it advisable that those hands should obtain fresh permits from the tribunal set up by the award. " (2) That in requiring these admittedly incompetent hands to obtain such permits before they were further employed the company were not acting unreasonably, in view iof the determination by the award of the industrial agreement. " (3) That this accounted for the dismissal or suspension of the majority of the hands suspended 01 dismissed on February 28. " (4-) That there is no reason to doubt the statement of McKe.n7.ie, the company's foreman, that in selecting for suspension or dismissal 13 of the men who had been previously receiving Is Id per hour, he selected those whom he honestly considered were the least profitable to the company of the general body of suoh workmen. _ "(5) That the company have .retained in their employment a considerable body of journeymen to whom they are paying the minimum wages prescribed by the award. '' (6) That there is a total absence of any evidence which would justify the Court in holding that in the selection of these 13 men the company discriminated between unionists and non-unionists. " (7) That the fact that these men were

not in terms dismissed, but suspended, and that the company were willing to re-employ them if they received permission to work a.t a lesser wage than Is 3d per hour, doos not of itself justify any inference that the company's intention was to evade the provisions of the award, nor does more than establish the Fact that in the opinion of the company these men were unable to earn tiie minimum wage of Is 3d per hour. " (8) That the dismissal or suspension of these 13 men under the circumstances disclosed in the evidence adduced before the Court, can, in no reasonable sense, be called x ' lookout,' or be held to be a contravention of the provisions of the award. " (9) That the fact that since February 2,8 the company has found it necessary to engage only three hands strongly supports tho inference that the reorganisation of the staff by the . company was a necessary inuident of the company's business, and 10) That I am unable to sec any ground upon which I can fairly draw any inference From thr> evidence that the acts of the company were done for the purpose of injuring the union, or for any other purpose than tho regulation of the business of the company. "In my opinion, therefore, the applicant has failed to establish his complaint against the company, and this application ought to be dismissed." THE DIRECT SUPPLY COMPACT. In dealing with the similar application in respect to the Direct Supply Company, His Honor referred to the correspondence put in Hid tho evidence given. He continued: "In my opinion it is impossible to hold ipon this evidence that the suspension or dissharge by this company of two men in the «bi net making department, and two men in ;he upholstery department, under the circumstances above stated establishes any sufficient case that the company were acting in contravention of the award. They employed a number of men in both departments; :hey retained of the alleged competent men ill except two in each department, and they ire paying to those retained the full minimum vago prescribed by the award. I am there'ore quite unable to see upon what ground ;he applicant can ask the Court to hold that ;bia company has committed a broach of the uvard, or that it has done anything beyond vhat a reasonable employer is entitled to do n the ordinary regulation of his business. In ny opinion this application must also be lismissed. THE EMPLOYERS' UNION. "As therefore, in my opinion, the applicant has failed to establish any case against either, the Tonson Garlick Company or he Direct Supply Company, the case against he employers' union, which is founded solely m the assistance and support given to these ;wo firms, must be dismissed. HE. TYSON'S APPLICATION. "I am of opinion that the application of vlr. Tyson under section 91 of the Act must ilso be dismissed. I have already stated hat I am unable to agree with tho contention hat the course proved to have bean followed >y the two companies against whom the principal applications have been filed or by the .employers' union, amounts to a breach of the uvard, and on this ground alone this application must, in my opinion, fail. But I am urther of opinion that the Court has already :ully performed the duty oast upon it by section 91. The .award is clear and precise n its terms. It directs what the parties shall' do and what they shall not do, and it Prescribes the penalty for any contravention if the terms and conditions of the ' award, [t has therefore, in its award, fully and ;learly satisfied the provisions of section 91. CONCLUDING EEMAEK3. His Honor went on to say: "In ' conclusion, I desire to say that in ny opinion the matters giving rise to these ipplieations have been clothed with an lffljortance and with proportions which they do lot merit. As. they have been treated as rasing questions of great public interest, I lave considered it necessary to deal with the ictual facts at very considerable length, and 0 set out in my judgment fully the evidence •elevant to the issues before the Court, stripped of imagery and irrelevant matter, he whole matter, reduced to its proper proportions, amounts to this, that but of a total jody of probably 250 or 300 workers affected >y the provisions of the award, 13 men in one irm and four in-another — two firms employing together more than one-half of the otal' number of workers affected by the ivvard—have, in the reorganisation and regulation, of thee© companies' businesses conicquent on the ooming into operation of an ward prescribing material alterations in the mis and conditions of employment, been lonsidered by these companies to be unable ,o earn the minimum wage prescribed. 1 mtirely disagree with the suggestion made JV the counsel for the applicants that in ;hese proceedings the efficacy of the Indusrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act is on ts trial, or that an adverse decision to the inplicants emasculates the Court award, md destroys the efficiency of our present :vstem of the . settlement of labour disputes. 1 entertain no doubt as to tne power and urisdietion of the Court to effectively <morce its awards, and to carry out ill all maters within its jurisdiction the true intent, neaning, and spirit of the statute. In the present case my decision is ■_ based strictly icon the evidence adduced before tho Court, ind upon which I have formed the opinion ; hat the acts proved to have been done by ;he defendants do not show any ground for lolding that the parties charged have offended igainst either the spirit or the letter of the iward of the Court, or against the policy >f the Act." i£K. SLATER DISSENTS FROM THE JUDGMENT. The judgment concluded as follows: "Mr. Slater dissents from the reasons I ipve stated in the foregoing judgment, and ■rom the conclusions arrived at by_ me, and Sea me to state that he confers the - i a concerted • breach of tlie ware" by both the Tonson Garlicky Company lid the Direct Supply Comply, in concert it with the employers, n union,., by doing -omethint in contravention of the terms of he awird: the breach being; tho refusal £ me aw*iu, _ hour to compet®nt men by pay the Is 3d an hour » t P Suspending them th/r pt permits , - them, and refusing L 'got. these perThe order of the Court is that these appu, cations are dismissed. _