MAKING OF BASKETS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19931, 27 April 1928, Page 8

MAKING OF BASKETS.

! PBicE-airmNG alleged. ! BLIND WORKERS AND AWARD. 'APPLICATION TO THE COURT. A CONFERENCE SUGGESTED.

Whether the basket® manufactured at the workshops of the Jubilee Institute for the Blind were sold at such a low price as to undercut seriously the prices charged by outside manufacturers was a question at issue before the Arbitration Court yesterday, when a joint application by employers and employees sought to have the institute joined as a party to the rattan and wickerworkers* award. The extreme 'difficulties of the case were commented upon by the Court, which adjourned the application with the suggestion that the parties should endeavour to arrive at a mutual understanding. Neither the employers nor the employees in the trade were out of sympathy with the institute, explained Mr. S. E. Wright. At the same time, the institute ;was going in for wickerwork on commercial lines, and its activities were hitting outside businesses and workers very hard. tThe case was particularly difficult because of the sympathy of the general public .with the institute, but it had to be remembered that the institute was interfering with the work of returned soldiers, who, because of various disabilities, were nnable to follow any other calling. Mr. iWright confessed that, personally, he could not see that the adding q| the institute as a party to the award would effect anything, but the application was m&de to bring matters to a head.

Effect on Manufacture™. Mr. Justice Frazer: There is the farther 'difficulty that, if the institute is added as a party to the award, special conditions applicable to the institute will have to be thought out by the Court,

On behalf of the Furniture Trades [Union, Mr. A. H. Dixon associated himself with Mr. Wright's submissions. Alfred Thompson, a member of the firm of W. A. Thompson and Company, said the institute had a fully qualified commercial traveller. There was no doubt the prices at which the institate sold its ,wares interfered with his business, and it was now becoming almost impossible to compete. Similar evidence waa given by Rowland [Wood, basketmaker, of Swanson, who said his material cost him less than the institute paid because he grew it himself; yet he conld not manufacture at the price at which the institute sold its goods. The principal competition was in fish baskets and clothes baskets.

Charles Shaw, employed as a basketmaker, said lie had lost a lot of time, a fact he attributed principally to the institute's competition.

Case For the Institute. Stating the case for the institute, the 'director, Mr Clutba Mackenzie, drew attention to the finding of the Court when a similar application was before it in October, 1926. The Court had declared it could not see that anything would be gained by granting the application. It was suggested then that a joint meeting should be held to arrive at an understanding on the matter of prices, but, although he had approached the 16 parties to the award, only five bad responded. One firm had expressed the opinion that the real cutting in prices was coming from ex-employees, who were making baskets at home and had no overhead expenses to consider.

The institute maintained the onus was en the parties to the award to follow the Court's previous recommendation, but so far the institute had been the only party to attempt to arrange a conference. It was further contended the main objective of the other parties—to increase the institute's costs and consequently its prices •—would not be effected by the granting of the application. Lastly, it was submitted it would be difficult to combine the conditions of the wickerworkers' award with the peculiar conditions of ; she blind workshops.

Issue in Bands oi Parties, 'AffAr a short retirement the Court announced the adjournment of the application until the next sitting in Auckland. It was admittedily a difficult position for both sides, said Mr. Justice Frazer. The trade was peculiarly suited for the employment of men disabled in various ways, as well as for blind people. The Court had every sympathy, both with the Blind Institute and with private manufacturers and their disabled employees. It appeared the general slackness of trade had had some effect by causing a number of employees, for whom no wovk was available, to start small businesses on their own and sell direct to the retailers, thus undercutting prices. This, it would appear, had affected the institute as well as outside manufacturers. The Court thought Mr. Mackenzie and the institute had gone out of their way to meet the manufacturers, who had not responded to ithe invitation to confer on the matter. The Court had been impressed by Mr. Mackenzie's extreme fairness, and it was difficult to understand why the manufacturers had again brought the application without arranging a conference as the Court had suggested 18 months ago. Until that were done, it was impossible to say whether and to what extent the institute was undercutting other manufaeturers. Instead of striking out the application, the Court proposed to adjourn the matter until its r<ext sitting in Auckland three months hence, and it expressed the hope that the manufacturers would take steps to arrange a conference with the institute. One member of the Court had suggested it might be possible to arrange for a joint selling organisation. "It is unthinkable that the institute should be added as a full party to the award," concluded His Honor. "It is even doubtful if that would have the effect desired. The issue is in the hands of the parties themselves. I hope they will try to work together and make the best J of an admittedly bad situation, for it is no nse holding each other at arm*B length."