THE TAILORS’ DISPUTE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3777, 27 June 1899, Page 7

THE TAILORS’ DISPUTE.

BEFORE THE CONCILIATION BOARD. “DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.” The Conciliation Board met in the Patent Office Library, Government Printing Office Building yesterday to consider the dispute between the Wellington Tailors’ Union and the employers. There were present Messrs W. H. Quick (chairman), D. P. Fisher, H. Flockton, A. Collins and S. Brown. The Tailors’ Union was represented by Messrs F. Rodgers and W. Murdoch (secretary of the Union). The Master Tailors’ Union was represented by Messrs W. Allan (Veitoh and Allan), D. Milligan (Berry and Orr) and A. G. King (King and Muir). Messrs D. Sankej and R. McNab, private employers were also present. Mr Allan complained at the outset that the Tailors’ Union had ignored the Master Tailors’ Union in this matter.

Mr Rodgers replied that an application was made to the Master Tailors, and the latter refused, to say who was in the Union. It was stated that there were eleven employers in the union, but as his union had nothing definite tc go upon, the employers were summoned individually. Mr King raised a question as to whether Mr Murdoch was not improperly a member of the Tailors’ Union. He was not ,a practical .'tailor and. he (Mi King) doubted y/hether the rules of the union provided for the introduction of outside members. '

Mr Rodgers pointed out that Mr Slur doch appeared as secretary of the union, and the chairman 'said he could do nothing in the matter. Mr King raised an objection that the reference to the board was not properly filed. The board had been called for a date three days actually before the dispute, for consideration by the board, had arisen. The reference v/as filed with undue haste, and was bad in principle. He, thought the matter should be referred back to the union. Mr Allan explained how this dispute had arisen. On the evening of the 23rd May the log (under consideration) was forwarded to the Master Tailors’ Union with a request for a reply by 10 a.m. on the 25th May. As the 24th May was a public holiday the employers were given about half an hour to consider this wonderful document. The master tailors mot on the 6th June, and wrote to the Tailors’ Union on the 7th asking for a month in which to consider the proposals made, by the latter, but the union was in such a terrible hurry that they rushed off and filed the dispute before receiving the employers’ letter. The letter from the masters stated that they were willing to continue with the present conditions of labour and rates of pay according to the old log. The Tailors’ Union was not treating the Masters’ Union in a fair and reasonable way. He contended' that the whole thing was illegally done. He asked whether it was reasonable to ask the employers to consider the new log which, contained 4032 items within a: month. ' ' s > ■ Mr A. Collins : Is that all ?

Mr Allan: It would take something like forty-two days’ sitting eight hours a day, and devoting only five minutes to each item to consider this log. Mr Allan said at a subsequent meeting of the Masters’ Union another lonhad been drawn up and the board had been asked to consider it on the 29th. If the present case was gone on with there was nothing, to, do but to stonewall it until the time was due for the consideration of the employers’ log.

Mr Murdoch said the reference war perfectly in order and the matter had been in dispute for over two years. Why it had been in every court in Wellington except the Appeal Court. He claimed that the Masters’ had plenty of time from the 23rd May to the 6th of June to consider the question. The Tailors’ Union had tried to facilitate the matter. Mr Rodgers, in addressing the Board, made reference to alleged unscrupulous emnloyers. Mr Allan (jumping to his feet): Mi Chairman, I claim your protection. The Chairman: I cannot have this kind of thing Mr Rodgers, you do not dc your side any good. Mr Allan : The Supreme Court upheld our contention. Mr Milligan ; Mr Chairmap, The Chairman: Please sit down. Mr Rodgers, continuing, said as a matter of fact the employers had fifteen days instead of half an hour to considei the matter. Mr Milligan rose to make a personal explanation as to the “base insinuation made by Mr Rodgers,” but the Chairman checked him. After further discussion the board decided to consider in private as to whether there was “a dispute” between the parties. On resuming the Chairman said the ouestion had been considered and the facts were that on the 23rd May the employers were served with the log containing some thousands of items, and on' that same evening a meeting was held at which a resolution was passed implying that something might take place. The employers at a regular meeting held on the 6th June took the matter into consideration and they wrote t

a letter to the Tailoss’ Union asking for a. month in which to consider the proposals laid before them. Whatever might bo the indication of things as to the chance of there being a dispute or not he ruled, and he was not alone in this opinion that on tho date of the meeting of the Tailors’ Union on the 23rd -xay no dispute could possibly have taken place within the meaning of the Act. A dispute meant something formulated, not a constant nagging, perhaps for twelve months or two years, as someone had said, but a proper formulation of tho matter on which the two parties had disagreed, and to which an answer, yes or no, could bo given. There was no such dispute on the 23rd May, and for that reason the board held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the matter as it stood at present. With regard to the Employers’ Union they had a-mattcr to come before tho b.oard on tho 29th, and ho supposed they irould havo to meet to consider it, but the result would be, that the board would havo to put it off until something had been- done to heal this difficulty. _ He might say that to his mind no dispute bad yet arisen between the emplovees and employers. Ho concluded: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.