THE FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12256, 28 April 1903, Page 5

THE FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE.

THE ARBITRATION COURT'S I JUDGMENT. INTERVIEWS WITH EMPLOYERS. SOME INTERESTING STATEMENTS. IMPORTED FURNITURE AND CHINESE LABOUR Some expressions of opinion, from the employers' point of view, regarding the decision given by the Court of Arbitration on Saturday in the furniture trade dispute were gathered yesterday by a Herald representative, who interviewed the representatives of three manufacturing companies, inoluding the two which were principally concerned in the recent deadlock and the subsequent proceedings. THE TONSON GARLICK COMPANY. Mr.. G. C. Garlick, of the Ton-son arlick Company, who was first waited upon, referred in his opening remarks to a statement made on Saturday to a Herald representative by Mr. Tyson, secretary of the workers' union. It was stated by the latter that the number of hands in the company's employ who were affected by tho award was only 50, but " this statement," said Mr Garlick, "is incorrect, inasmuch as nearly the total number of hands in our employ were under the Factories Act, and were affected more or less by the award." Mr. Garlick then proceeded to speak on the question of the probable effect of the recent proceedings as follows:—"What has occurred will have a tendency to induce our company to import furniture to a larger extent than heretofore, and Wis to prevent ourselves, as far as possible, from being hampered by the effects of labour legislation. For many years the policy of the company has been that of building up what was considered to. be an industry for which there was a large scope. I Whilst we have been successful in building ! up what is undoubtedly the largest furniture factory in New Zealand, in spite of the difficulties cast upon us by labour legislation, and have thus afforded employment to a largo number of hands; and whilst we are still anxious to open up further departments in the trade, the result of the recent proceedings must be retrenchment in the manufacturing part of the business." Continuing, Mr. Garlick said: " Much has been said of late in regard to Chinese labour, and whilst our company would never entertain the idea of engaging such labour, and whilst we have never imported and do not intend to import from Australia a 'single stick of Chinese-made furniture, Chinese labour in the furniture trade in Sydney and Melbourne is becoming a serious factor. Even the largest furniture manufacturing company in the southern hemisphere, which was equipped with all the latest improvements in machinery, etc., and which employed only European labour, was compelled to shut down a few months ago owing to the keen competition, of the Chinese labour. Notwithstanding the fact that the trades unions in Australia have succeeded in forcing manufacturers employing Chinese labour to work union hours and pay union wages, the desired effect—that of driving this class of labour out of the market— not been attained. Since tho recent dispute in Auckland commenced inquiries have been made by one Australian firm, which employs Chinese labour, as to the question of starting a factory in Wellington, and whilst every effort would be made on our part to compete against goods manufactured under such conditions, we cannot get away from the faot that the general public will buy the cheapest article in the market." " But should what you say is contemplated take place, is not the Legislature likely to adopt restrictive measures?" " Yes, no doubt it would, but as I have already said, similar legislation in Australia has not brought about the desired effect." "Is the quality of the Chinese work you speak of equal to that of the European workmanship?" "The quality of the Chinese work in many cases is of suoli a standard that none but an expert could distinguish it from the Euro-pean-made article." " Whenthe recent dispute was commenced the question of an increased duty on imported furniture was mooted. What effect do you suppose this would have on importations?"

. "It would not affect our company very materially, as the general publio would be the sufferers." ( THE DIRECT SUPPLY COMPANY. Mr. Brown, Aie managing director of the Direct Supply Company, who was next waited upon, said he had very little to say. "The position taken up by the D.5.C.," he said, " was clearly, in our opinion, one of right and reason The Court, in its decision, has approved thatjfview, but, whatever the decision might have been it would not have altered our opinion as to the justice of the position which we took up. No employer can allow himself to be dictated to as to the men he , shall employ, and whilst the award will be loyally carried out by us, it is impossible to I pay a uniform wage to all classes of men. The sole contention of the D.S.O. has been for the right to discriminate between the men who can and those who cannot be profitably employed at a given figure. Our sole intention is to carry out the Apt in its entirety, and as far as possible to give it a fair trial. It is simply a delusion to think that the employer has any objection to a higher rate of wages, as the higher labour generally throughout the oolony is paid the greater will be the prosperity of business concerns, owing to the increased spending power of the workers." Questioned in regard to the matter of Chinese labour, Mr. ■ Brown . said: ; "Whilst we would not employ Chinese on any account, and whilst we do not wish to have any connection with them, I think that if they came in here it would be at the expense of the white population, as the British public invariably buy in the cheapest market. That has been proved both in Sydney and Melbourne." "Do you know anything as to the quality of the Chinese-made goods?" V "I have seen Chinese-made furniture, both in Sydney and Melbourne, that could not be excelled by any white labour. I have beard it rumoured that a firm employing Chinese labour contemplate starting in Auckland, but I cannot say whether there is any truth in ANOTHER EMPLOYER'S VIEW. Mi. Matthew Clark, ■ managing director of Messrs. Archibald Clark and Sons, Limited, in .answer'.; to the reporter's query as to whether he had anything to say from ■' the employers' general point of view, said: " The question has been decided by the Court, and very • little remains :to be ; said. \ The- main point was as to the right of an employer to decide , whether a : man is worth the wage awarded by the Arbitration Court, or whether the men, through their union, have the power to compel him to give them this' wage; It has now been decided~by the Court that an employ 6l has; a ' Perfect right to say whom he < shall and whom ■be shall not employ. ; Of course, this was a very important, and . I may say a vital, point to all employers of labour."