INQUIRY INTO THE AUCKLAND “LOCK-OUT."

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1626, 29 April 1903, Page 44

INQUIRY INTO THE AUCKLAND “LOCK-OUT."

AUCKLAND, April 20. The Arbitration Court —Mr Justice j Cooper and Messrs Brown and felatei J to-clay commenced the hearing of the j dispute in the furniture trade. Messrs Tole and Martin represented the unionists, and Messrs Cotter and Campbell appeared for the employers, it was agreed to take all the cases together. Mr Tole, in opening, said the Arbitration Court fixed the minimum wages in the trade at Is 3d per hour. Certain employers and employees of the union took a stand of determined hostility, notably the D.S.C. and Messrs Tonson, Gar lick and Co. Expedients were resorted to to defeat the effect of the award, and a number of men were suspended because the employers would not pay them Is 3d per hour. Some of the men suspended were not incompetent. Sixteen of the men suspended had since obtained full wages. There had been a lock-out to coerce the union into agreeing to lower pay to competent men than was provided in the Court’s award. The Employers’ Association met and unanimously supported this course. The action of the Employers’ Union was deliberate and contMinacious, had nullified iho award, and struck at the very ioOv the policy of the Arbitration Court. If the action of the employers was upheld the Act would he effete, and the whole legislation would have to be recast. Francis Templar, secretary of the Employers’ Association, gave evidence. He Ka : d lie had no knowledge except hearsay the individual action taken by employers. He heard something to the effect that the employers objected to the minimum wage fixed when the award was n'en but not afterwards. Tlie mattei o as taken up by the Employers’ Union on 6th March. There had been no meeting since 16th January previous. Ihe Employers’ Union unanimously resolved to approve the action of its membeis in the suspension of hands considered incompetent. The Employers’ Union was not in correspondence with other unions in New Zealand, but witness had circularised other unions. Trie employers had not asked financial support from any j other union. Mr Templar, continuing, said a meeting was called on the 10th inst. tomeet and confer with Mr Tregear ana the union. Delegates were appointed with plenary powers. The conference came | to nothing. Another meeting was held j on March 19th. It was then resolved to employ counsel in the matter, and j that was all that was done. The union j was not in correspondence with other j unions in New Zealand and Australia, hut witness had circularised other unions , giving particulars so us to keep them posted in what was being done. They had not asked for financial support from unions. On March 7th he wrote to Mr S. Tyson, secretary to the Workers’ Union, in reply to a letter forwarded to Mr Garlick. Mr Garliok handed the letter to witness, stating that- he was not aware he had committed a breach of the award, and asking witness to reply for him. He told witness in general terms what he wished to say. Mr Tole handed in the letter, which stated that the Tonson-Garlick Company was not conscious of committing any breach of the award. Mr Tole also put in a newspaper interview with Mr j Templar. In this interview Mr Templar had stated that rc the dispute was j hound to come. It may have come too j soon, or it may have come too late, j hut it had come.” George Stohie stated that he was a fully competent workman, and was employed hy the Tonson-Garlick Company for about seven months until the last Saturday in February. He received Is Id per hour. No question as to his j competency was raised up to that Saturday, hut at knocking-off time he was I told hy the foreman not to start on * Monday until he had seen the foreman. 1

No reasonwas given. Other men were told the same thing. On the Monday morning witness and several others turned up and saw the foreman and others, but did not speak to them. They waited for some time, and then went away, returning with the expectation of coming to an understanding, but did not succeed in their object. William Goodsir stated that he had been in the employ of the Tonson-Gar-lick Company for a year. On Saturday, February 28th, the foreman asked him if he wanted Is 3d per hour. Witness said, “Certainly,” and was told to see the foreman on the Monday before starting. On the Monday witness and a dozen others waited at the factory. They saw the foreman, but nothing was said, and at 8 o’clock witness went away. He returned in an hour, but was not taken on. A fortnight later he got his tools. Evidence in regard to conditions of employment, their competency and suspension was also given by James Chisholm, cabinetmaker ; Robert Alexander Gillispie, upholsterer; Percy Mclntosh, cabinetmaker; Ernest Ward, improver: and Ernest Brackett, cabinetmaker. Samuel Tyson, secretary of the Furniture Workers’ Union, then gave evidence. He referred to an interview which he had had with Mr Garlick. of the Tonson-Garlick Company. The Court adjourned until 10.30 tomorrow. , AUCKLAND, April 21. The inquiry by the Arbitration Court into the alleged “look-out” in the furniture trade was continued to-day before Mr Justice Cooper (president) and Messrs Brown and Slater. The cross-examination of Samuel Tyson, secretary to the Furniture Industrial Union, was continued. In answer to Mr Cotter, witness stated that in conversation with Garliok at the time the dispute arose, he suggested that Garlick should take back competent men at the increased rate ox competent men under the award, and that incompetent men should go back at their old rates until an adjustment was effected. He intended that incompetent men should not go back at the old rate unless competent men were paid Is 3d per hour. There was nothing in the award about a committee fixing the rates of pay to incompetent men, hut that was the most common-sense view to take. Mr Campbell asked witness if employers must not necessarily suspend employees who were incompetent after the issue of an award or pay the minimum award. 14 is Honor said that certificates were issued t-o incompetent men for six months, and did not expire, notwithstanding a new award having been inade. Mr Campbell said the employers clearly understood that everything in the old award expired when a new award came in. If the employers had been aware of what his Honor said—that the wages of men not previously earning the minimum wage were not immediately to he raised, pending settlement — not one of the men would have been discharged at all. His Honor: There are two rates —-one for competent men and one for those unable to earn the minimum, .wage. The wage for competent men was raised by the award. It was not certain from the old agreement whether certificates continued in force, the clause being totally dissimilar to those in other agreements. Mr Tole pointed out that the charge was not concerning incompetent men. The evidence of several workmen followed, which closed the case against the employers. Mr Campbell, addressing the Court, submitted that the applications did not disclose any breach either of the award or of the Act. The proceedings, although enforcing a civil claim, were partly criminal, inasmuch as a penalty was asked for. He submitted that there was no foundation in law which made it an offence on the part of a union of employers to encourage its members to defeat the force of the award, the charge in short being that

the union had encouraged its members j not to pay the minimum. Apart from the law of arbitration, there was no obligation on the part of any employer t to employ any persons except by virtue : of contract between employer and em- j ployee. Counsel contended that there was nothing in the Arbitration Act which made it compulsory for any : employer to continue in his employment j any man; that if an act be lawful it i could not become unlawful by reason of ; motive or intent, no matter if the mo- j tive were a bad one; and further, that j unless persons inviting others to l per- j form such act did it for the purpose of in- j citing them to do an injury, they were j not answerable in any action for their I conduct. Coming to particular cases, it ! was alleged that the D.S.C. committed i a bleach of the award by discharging; men, this being a charge of an unlawful act. hy reason that it had a particular | and intended effect. That was the sub- j stance of the information. He asked whei her the discharge of men was legal or illegal, and said that upon the answer to that question depended the finding n r tlie Court. He submitted that, apart from the Arbitration Act, it could not be -aid there had been a breach of the law, and that an employer could discharge an employee, no matter how malicious his motive might be. His Honor said that in common law i ,i, ro was nothing to prevent an employ jr from locking out all his men, or to prevent men from striking, but he asked if Mr Campbell said that under the New Zealand Act there was nothing to prevent an employer from locking his men out? Mr Campbell said that he did not propose to make ms argument a hair’s bixadtn wider than was necessary. His Honor said that if Mr Campbell would rather not express an opinion, the Court certainly did not want him to. It might bo necessary for tlie Court in ihe present case to lay down a general proceeding, and if they found it necessary it would be their duty to do so. It might certainly be of assistance to me Court if the matter were treated by counsel from a general point of view, [ i,t he did not ask them to do so. Mr Campbell said he would do so. He contended that an employer’s right to employ or discharge whom he pleased was not affected by the New Zealand arbitration law while a dispute was not pending. If it was contended that xne Court had power to declare that an employer should continue to employ workmen during the currency or an award, then he was prepared to dispute absolutely any power of the Court to make any such provision, because it would be fundamentally opposed to British law and the right of an employer, and even if such nowers were conferred on the Court by the exact wording of the statute, lie would contend that such i;i Aver did not exist. No such powers Avrre intended to bo conveyed by the Legislature. Mr Cotter said the charge did not within its four corners disclose an offeree Ho also held that the evidence had not shown that any offence had i-een committed. In dismissing any men the employers were simply doing what j the law entitled them to do. They said ; to the employees: “We cannot give you the wages fixed by the Court; there-; lore we cannot keep you in our employment.” As to the information against the Employers’ Union, nothing was d< ue to disregard or defeat the award. Mr Tyson’s application was enough to stagger any person accustomed to the administration of the law. It vas piactically to declare a certain thing a breach ana asking for the infliction of a penalty for prior commission of such breach. This application, so far as it asked for the imposition of a penalty, could not be upheld. AUCKLAND, April 22. The Arbitration Court concluded its hearing of the dispute in the furniture! trade to-day. Tlie judgment of the j Cc-urt is expected to be available by j Saturday.