SUITS TO MEASURE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6052, 9 November 1906, Page 9

SUITS TO MEASURE.

SKVKNTY SHILLING OUTFITS. COMPETITION WITH TAILORS. ' ARBITRATION COURT INTKRFERKS. ‘‘Complaint lias been made that tailors are subject to Uio unfair competition persons who profess to bo bailors but really have no tailoring establishment. We have endeavoured to make provision to meet this class of case.” Wlieii tJio Arbitration Court made its award in the tailoring trade last IVlji-Uiiry, it gave as one of its reasons for blio award the statement ■ijiuited above. The provision made to do away with the cause of complaint was contained in clause 7:— All bespoke work shall be clone in the shop of the employer for whom the same is performed, and for whom, or by whom, tho order is taken. All such work as shall be performed by journeymen shall be paid according to the time statement hereto attached. Tho expression “bespoke work” in these conditions shall include all goods made and sold as ‘-tailor-made” : also any order ill which there is a garment fitted on, whether such garment is by chart measurement or not.

After tho award came into force the Tailors’ Union, which had been largely instrumental in obtaining this award, found reason to believe that the provision was not being complied with. Tho Labour Department was induced lu lake action in the mutter, and the first batch of prosecutions for breaches

were* brought before tho Arbitration Court yesterday by the Inspector of

Awards', Mr C. 10. Aldridge. iho first case. ngainst C. Smith, cloth ini-. was defended. Mr AI. Myers apiH-’iu'otl lor respondent. The fact that the suit ordered from and sold by respondent was made up at the factory of (!. Cathie was admitted. Tim defence was that the work was not /'bespoke” work within tho meaning of the award.

Inspector Aldridge stated the case against defendant. This was, he submitted. a case precisely similar to that decided in Christchurch recently against Roach and Co. K. J. Johansen, an engine-driver, gave evidence that ho had given an order lor a suit of clothes on April SOtlt. He was measured for the suit. It was to bo a tailor-made suit. Subsequently ho called and had tho suit tried oil in Mr Smith's shop. When tried on, tho suit was not finished. Some chalk marks were made on tho coat by the man who was firing it on. A few ’days Inter he called at the shop and received the suit, paying £3 10s for it. Was told that the suit was tailor-made.

Cross-examined by Mr Myers, witness repeated that, when he _ went to tho shop ho asked for a tailor-mado uiit. to order. After questioning, however, he admitted that ho did not remember whether lie used the words “tailor-made” in the shop. Ho had been asked to go to that shop by Mr Baker, who was, ho understood, secretary of the Tailors’ Union. One respect in which the coat was not completed when it was tried on was that Mio buttons were not on.

For respondent. Lewis Brodhnrst. assistant in Mr Smith’s employ, was called. Ho stated that he remembered Johansen coming to the shop on April S7th. Ha wanted to seo some patterns for a suit. Witness showed Him the patterns, and; when one was chosen, Mr

Horry measured 1 Johansen. Johansen merely asked for a suit. The words 'Hailor-mado” wore not used. Tho suit, after being made up at Cathie’s, camo back complete. Tho buttons were on it. Questioned as to the term “fitting on,” referred ho in section 7 of tho award, witness said this term in tho tailoring trade meant trying a coat on when it was basted, with tho French canvas down tho front, and only ono •sleeve in.

To Inspector Aldritlgo: The coat was tried on to aeo if any alterations wore required. If tho, sleeves had been too short they would have been lengthened. No alterations, were required in this xose)

Alfred Thomas Berry, also an employee of respondent, stated that ho had measured Johansen for the suit, and had subsequently fitted the coat on. If any alterations had been necessary, they would have been raado at Air Cathie’s factory. He might have put some chalk marks on the coat ho seo if the front was straight. No alterations wero necessary.

To Inspector- Aldridge: It was not necessary to make the chalk marks, but that was a habit of tho trade. It was )ruo that pieces of tweed wore displayed in tho shqv> window; those wore, marked “Suit smado to measure,” such and such a price. Did not consider this fact showed that the ‘ firm sot themselves up as tailors. Charles Cathio, clothing manufacturer, said tho suit made- for Johansen was complete when sent from the factory. Alterations wore occasionally raado in suits ordered in this manner. W. T. Quinton and T. Warnook, mercers, gave evidence regarding tho trade aignifioation of hho term “fitting on.” Air Myers argued the legal effect of tho award. The words “fitted on” must, he submitted, bo taken in tho •trade sense.

The President: How are wo to know that it is a trade term? Is it not plain English ? ... Mr Myers submitted that in this caso at any rate there was no fitting on. No alterations wore required, and there was nothing to prevent the man. taking ■the suit away at tho time of fitting, except that he had not tho cash with him.

Inspector AMridgo replied. Air Alyers subsequently raised another argument. He asked the Court to consider whether it had jurisdiction to penalise the respondent in this case, since he did not employ any operative tailors.

Mr Slater said Smith employed the man who measured and tho man who fitted on the suit. ’ Mr Alyers asked if that man would ho classed as an operative tailor? Tho President: Oh, I think so. After consideration the President gave tho Court's judgment. Section 7 provided that all bespoke work should he done in tho shop of the employer •for whom the same was performed and •for whom or by whom tho order was taken. There was no doubt a breach had teen committed if this was bespoke work. Bespoke work was all work made and sold as tailor-made. There was a conflict of evidence on tho question whether tho suit in this caso was tailor-made and tho Court would

nrtt decide that those goods , wore made lind sold ns tailor-made. The word • ’‘bespoke’’ also included any order for a garment which was fitted on, whether the measurement was taken by chart measurement or not. The Ooifot had no doubt that the garment was fitted on. It was certainly tho trade practice to fit garments on at a certain

stage; but employers could not relieve themselves of responsibility under the award by fitting them on at another stage. If tho words “fit on” wore road as plain English, there could bo no doubt as to their effect. Tho suit was therefore made to a bespoke order. This fit on was not made with a view to the possibility of rejection, but with a view to improvement, if necessary. With reference to tho legal point raised by Mr Myers the Court had decided that tho respondent who lot out tho work practically ad piece work was liable under tho award. A penalty or £6 was inflicted. ADMITTED BREACHES. During tho afternoon throe cases in. Which broaches of section 7 were admitted wore dealt with. In tho case against t-ho D.T.C. Mr Lowcy pleaded that there were extenuating circumstances connected with tho breach. Tho company had had a -tailoring establishment of its own, until the business was dk-torgan-isod by tho fire. Some work was put out while the firm was making arrangements for a permanent mode ox doing tho work. Inspector Hally said this offence was regarded as serious. Tho secretary of tho TailorA Union was prepared to c;ivo evidence that the attention of the manager of tho D.X.C. had been called to the practice. The -method of doing business was to take the order at tno D.1.C., then to send it to a tailor in Manners Street. The tailor would partially make the suit up, and return it to the D. 1.0. to be fitted on. Then ho would receive it back and finish it. The inspector did not suggest that tho company did this to save money by underpaying its workmen. President Chapman said ho saw no reason for making any distinction between this and other cases. A firm of the standing of this company ought to have been tho first to scrupulously observe the award. The fine would bo £5. For a similar offence Duncan and Mclntosh were fined £5. , Walsh and Co., represented by Mr Devine, admitted a similar breach. Counsel pleaded, however, that since the firm had. been advised by tho inspectors of the- effect of this award it had coasted carrying on business in tbis manner. The effect of the section had not been made public up to tho present.

Tho President daid this matter had been almost the sole subject of discuswon among tailors for two days when tho original dispute was before the Court. Ho was surprised to hear a member of trade plead that three months after-the award came into force ho wad ignorant of its effect. A fine of £5 would bo imposed.

WHAT THE TAILORS THINK. Master tailors and employees alike have harboured indignation against tiio “made to measure” system, which they regard as unfair competition. Mr H. J. Baker, who was till recently secretary of the Tailors’ Union, expressed his feelings on the subject to a “Times” reporter. The position, lie explained, was that this system had been cutting into the tailoring trade to a very- great extent for many years past. The Tailoring Union recently camo to the conclusion that to protect its own members, the legitimate employers, and tho general public, it was necessary to appeal to the Arbitration Court to make an 'award which might have the effect of bringing the trade back into its proper channels. For this purpose clause 7 (quoted above) wan included in the award. Some firms which did not employ any tailoring hands took orders and fitted on tho suits. The suits were made up at the factories. The factories worked under a different award from the tailors. Under the factory log a suit could be made for about a third the cost of tailoring one. The cost of making to a tailoring firm could ho sat down at about three guineas. No tailor could produce a suit for less than! £3 or £3 ss. The average cost of making up a suit in a factory was about 24s or less. Tho factories not only paid wages on a lower scale, as they wore allowed to do under their award,, hut made the suits up in a different manner. Tho Union, MiBaker added, did not wish to interfere with any legitimate industry, but at the same time its members strongly objected to others interfering with their industry which was just us legitimate. Let the factories keep to their own class of work and the tailors f. > theirs. In accordance with the judgment of the Arbitration Court there must now be a change in tho order of This decision meant that it was against the law for any of these firms to put a factory-made coat on to see whether any alteration was required. The Union had maintained that there should bo no fitting on at any stage in the making of the ccat. Now that this decision had been given, there must be a change. Air P .Muir, the present secretary of the Tailors’ Union, who was present during the interview, endorsed what Mr Baker said. '