“BESPOKE” WORK.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6623, 12 September 1908, Page 2

“BESPOKE” WORK.

TAILORS’ UXTOX v. D.I.C. BREACH OF AWARD. A FIXE OF £5. In the Arbitration Court yesterday judgment was given iu the caae Wellington Tailors’ Industrial Union of Workers v. Tlic lU.CL, Limited. His Honor the president said: —■ Tho respondent in ihh* case is adcged to have committed a breach or clause 7 cf the Wellington Tailors’ award, which provides that all bespoke work shall bo done in the shop of the employer for whom tho same is performed and for whom or by whom the order is taken. ‘‘Bespoke work” is declared to include all goods made and sold as tailor-made, and any order iu which there is a garment fitted on, whether wnch garment is by chart nii!asurement or not.

It was proved that in the month of July, IUU/ a suit was made to measure for Mr iloardou by tho respondent. The order was taken by tho respondent and the suit was made up not in tho reipondeni/tf shop but in a factory in A mlington. It was also proved that tho coat was tried on after tho suit had been made, and was found not to bo a satisiactory ht. Mr Reardon said that it was left in the shop for tliu purpose of being altered, that when ho tried it on again it fitted better and that it must have been altered in the interval. Mr LiUzoll tho manager of respondent’s clothing

•- -el):'.rtmeat admits chat the icoat was loft after having been tried on, but denies that it waj left for the purpose of being altered, and swears that the coat was not altered in auv way. DEFJMXTIOM OF TAILOR-MADE.

ii* • • to us to bo unnecessary to decide whether the coat was fitted on for the purpose of being altered, if necessary, so as to bring the case within the second branch of the definition cf bespoke work, because it seems to be. clear on tho evidence that the suit was made and sold as tailormade, and thus comes uitiun the first branch of the definition.

In the jiiflg.u.ont of this Court in the case of tho Auckland Tailors’ Union v. Rushbreok and Bridgman and others it is said ‘That if a clothier takes an order for a suit of clothes for which the customer is measured, and there is no mention or indication of how it is to be made up tho customer is entitled to expect a tailormade suit, and in such a caso the suit should be made and sold as tailormade. Mr Reardon swore that when ho gave tho order for the suit and was measured for it nothing was said as to how tho suit was to bo made up, and ills cvidenco on this point is corroborated by the two witnesses called on behalf of tho respondent. Mr Wilson, tho salesman who t?aw Mr Reardon first, swore that, as far as he could recollect nothing was said as to how the suit was to be made up. Mr Fitzzell, who took Mr Reardon’s measure, gave similar evidence. ‘T took the measurements',” he said “and made no remark as to how it was to bo made up.” On, this evidence it is clear that tho suit mast fee treated as having been made and sold as tailor-made. . the; maxager exonerated.

A breach of award has, therefore, been committed, and wo order the respondent to pay the sum of £5 to the union as a penalty for this breach, together with disbursements and witnesses’ expenses to bo fixed by the Clerk of Awards.

It is desirable to add that Sir Corrigan, the manager for tho respondent, appears to liavo do no all that he reasonably could do to prevent any breach of award. Ho car© Mr Fitzzell specific instructions in writing on the subject in the end of 1006, and if these instructions had been carried out no breach of award would have taken place.