ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13192, 1 June 1906, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

THE TAILORING DISPUTE,

THE HEARING CONCLUDED

The Arbitration Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Chapman and Messrs. Brown and Slater, sat yesterday at the Supreme Court. The hearing of the tailoring dispute, which was started last week, was concluded.

Mr. W. S. Moxson (secretary), supported by Messrs. W. D'Anthreaux (president) and T. Carter (delegate), appeared for the workers' union. Mr. C. Brown (vice-presi-dent), supported by Mr. E. G. Clark (delegate), represented the masters' union. Mr. F. H. Templer appeared for th Auckland Manufacturers' Union of Employers, arid Mr. A. Rcsser on behalf of the Auckland tailoresses.

It will be remembered that Mr. Moxson at the commencement of the case said that they were prepared to make the proposal that advances should be made as follows: On frock and dress coats, Is 9d; on the morning coats, Is sd; on dinner coats, Is; on sac coats, Is 6d; on Norfolk coats, Is 6d. These advances, he thought, would clear away old trouble in regard to tabulation. They also proposed that everyone should be put on piecework, excepting o;ie weekly hand. The workers also asked for a rise of about three farthings on the stitching of edges for coats. Mr. Templer addressed the Court on behalf of the Auckland Manufacturers' Union, and referred mostly to the chart system. Ho did not concern himself, he said, that the question of hours or wages. He referred to, clause 6. of the award, "That there be no distribution of labour known as the team system in their respective workshops by the employers."' The union were asking for. the retention of this, and the question involved, was a serious one. The Court regulated the business relations between masters and men in almost every possible direction. In almost every branch of the trade where skilled labour was employed the specialisation of that labour was becoming more and more a necessity. This might result in the effaceinent of the craftsman of an older time. The specialisation of labour was proved to result in better workmanship, and in increase of output To enforce the retention .of a system which entailed a diminution of output was a serious responsibility, for diminution of output was a factor which had to be considered when they endeavoured to ascertain the cause of the increased cost of living. Provided the employer paid the wages and observed the hours prescribed by the Court, it was difficult to perceive in what possible direction the distribution of his labour could hurt the workman. They asked that the employer be left perfectly free to use his own discretion, and the request lie submitted was both reasonable and right. It had been shown in evidence that the chart orders were largely availed of by the public, a fact of which the Court, no doubt, was fully aware. It fulfilled the requirements of a large number of people -whose occupations necessitated the maintenance of a good*external appearance, but whose -means were not equal to the cost of a tailor-made suit. To surround with barbed-wire entanglements a business which was found to satisfy the legitimate wants'of the public was contrary to the public benefit. In answer to Mr. Templer, the Court expressed the opinion that under the existing award a retail clothier could take an order for a suit, and send it to a factory to be made. There was one proviso, viz., that there should be no try-on. Mr. Templer (continuing) said he thought that the tailoring trade proper was sufficiently protected by the provisions • of clause 7, relating to bespoke work, even .if the definition of bespoke work was confined to, the inclusion of all goods made and sold as tailor-made. The factory owners were quite agreeable to place their ordinary labels on the goods they made. He understood that the Southern clothing manufacturers were relieved from. the necessity of placing a label on their goods setting out that they were factory-made, and seeing that the products of their factories flooded Auckland's market it Would not be equitable if the necessity for affixing the label to their goods were imposed in Auckland. Referring to his remarks on the question of fitting on garments made to chart measurement, the Court of Arbitration was endowed with enormous powers, but even its jurisdiction had its ' limitations, and Tie asked whether the Court had the power to prohibit the fitting or trying on of garments made to' chart measurements.

Further evidence, was called by the masters. Messrs. W. J, Woollams and' B. J. Kemp were called, and supported the contentions of the employers. They thought £2 10s was a fair minimum wage. Mr. Kemp said that a tailor employed by him averaged £3 Is sd' a week for seven weeks. Another tailor averaged £2 15s for 42 weeks. A third tailor £2 18s 9d for 52 weeks.

John Meldrum, a master tailor, said that he paid weekly wages, his reason being that he could' not make working men's suits if he had to employ piece labour. He did not employ girls on coats. He sold his suits from £4 upwards. He paid weekly wages, so that he could meet workingmen's requirements. If he had to pay piece work prices he would have to turn his attention to some other occupation. ' Percy Wm. 801 l and, ,master tailor, said ■"he employed his men weekly. This system saved friction, and his men were evidently .well satisfied with their wsiges, for they all stayed with him. He paid £3 10s a week to one man, and gave him two weeks' holiday on pay. Another man received £2 13s 6(1, while four of his women averaged from £1 10s to £1 8s 2d. He had never kept a, man who was not worth more than £2 10s a week.

Arthur Rosser. president of the Tailoresses' Union, said that a meeting of the Tailoresses' Union was held : , at which the masters' union representatives were present, but the 'men's representatives, who had been invited, were not present. It whs decided that he (the witness) should sign the agreement between the masters and the tailoresses.

A practical tailoress said she was satisfied with the present agreement between the girls and the employers. She had heard it said that the men intended to do away with the Tailoresses' Linion.

Ellen Willis, secretary of the Tailoresses' Union, said that she was in the habit of visiting the. order shops. She thought that the majority- of the tailoresses were satislied with the existing agreement with the masters. •

Two other tailoresses gave corroborative evidence. The general opinion was, they said, that tin existing conditions were preferable to those proposed. If the demands of the men's union were granted, it would tend to move the girls off the coat work. Mr. Brown, in his address to the Court, pointed out that the evidence given showed that, under present conditions tailors made a. fair living. The evidence given had shown that £2 10s was only the minimum wage, and not a standard. He pointed out that it was their third appearance in six years. The Legislature, he thought, did not intend that, as soon as one award expired, the men should come up and ask lor increases. Referring to the chart system, they submitted that anyone working that system, and dressing his window, and putting " tailor" .over his dooi, should pay according to the tailors' log, and not send his work to factories.

Mr. Clark addressed the Court chiefly on the weekly-wage system. Ho said there had. not been any circumstances to warrant an alteration of conditions from those agreed upon as fair three years ago. There was no finality in the men's demands. They only used one award as a stepping-stone to another ■

Mr. A. Rosssr said that force of circumstances called upon him to oppose a union of workers. There was, however, the satisfaction that he was supporting v . weaker union, which he believed to be in the right. They were opposed to the institution of the team system. When the agreement was formed 't was a case of give-and-take, and the masters submitted to the tailoresses' opposition to the team, system. The masters had also agreed to preference in Auckland to members of the Tailorcssei;' Union. The girls- also now supported the tailors' and masters' unions in opposing the existing chart system. The Tailoresses'

Union had 40 odd coatmakers on their membership roll, and they opposed the tailors' demands in this respect for Is au hour. This would mean that the girls would go out of the trade. He was merely the mouthpiece of the girls, and there was a strong determination on their part in this matter. fie hoped that the Coir would find so that the girls could have the opportunity of continuing in a trade for which they had qualified themselves, ■ Ip : Moxson, in his address, said there Had been no material rise granted to the tailors for some considerable time. The piece system would preclude tailors being worked like machines, and would prevent them in their old age being thrown on chanty. It would put everyone on an equal footings Fourteen hands were sufficient to each machinist, and this number should not be increased. Mr. Moxson reviewed the various proposals sing! giving reasons in each case in Support. ' They had no intention of throwing the girl coatmakers out of the trade" directly. They had intended coming to an agreement with the girl coatmakers and apprentices at piesent in the trade, so that they might be protected. The conferences, however, between them had come to an. abrupt end, "*% to an evident misunderstanding. The decision of the Court was reserved. -I he Court adjourned until half-past ten o clock this morning, when awards wilt be given m the following: —Builders' labourers quarrynien'.?, and n'shcurers' disputes, and also judgment in the following compensation cases:—Selby v. Murray, and tarter v. the Settlers' Steamship Company.