ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5736, 3 November 1905, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

YESTERDAY’S BUSINESS. His Honor Mr’Justicc Chapman, with ’ Messrs Browm and Slater, members of the Arbitration Court, held a fairly long sitting yesterday. THE FURNITURE TRADE. Mr H. Field, who appeared for the employers in the furniture trade, iutiI mated that the dispute between the I masters and the union had been practically settled. A conference had been , held, and both sides, so far as Tvellington and its suburbs were concerned, had come to an agreement. Mr Field added that there was a possibility of objection being taken in Palmerston North and Wanganui. The Court decided that no award should bo drawn up until tho country objections wero heard. THE TAILORING TRADE. Tho matter of an industrial dispute between master tailors and employees camo before the Court, when Mr H. Field, who appeared .for Messrs Schlandt and Co., applied that tho name of that firm should bo struck off tho list of parties to tho dispute. He explained that this firm’s business had been injured through it going forth that they wero doing a “chart order” business, and they applied for compensation in consequence of that injury. Mr W. T. Young, who appeared on behalf of tho union, said that Schlaadt and - Co. had been joined on tho recommendation of tho master tailors. He accepted Mr Field's explanation, and consented to .tho name being struck off the list. The Court granted tho application, but intimated that it had no power to allow compensation. An application was made on behalf of the Tailors’ Union with regard to the Wellington branch of tho Manufacturers’ Association. Mr W. T. Young appeared in support of. the union and Mr Charles Cathie represented the association. It was explained that the only matter in dispute was the acceptance of the rules, as agreed to by some sixty-four employers, by some seven employers who comprised the Manufacturers’ Association, The union’s position was that no objection should be taken to ‘bespoken” tailoring work being done in factories, so long as the articles were not fitted on in the shop, and were marked on the hanging-up tag “factory made.” It was stated that many shopkeepers called themselves “merchant tailors” who did not employ tailors. They simply took “chart” orders from customers and sent tho articles out to be made up at a factory. But they charged the customers full rates, while they paid the workers factory rates. These statements were denied by the manufacturers, who submitted that they were quite willing that all “bespoken” garments should be marked on the “hanger-up” loop in coats tho words “made by male labour” it made by tailors, and “made by female labour” if made by tailorcsscs. A considerable amount of evidence was called, but the case was not concluded when tho Court adjourned for the day. It will bo continued at 10.30 this morning.