THE BOARD OF CONCILIATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2242, 18 February 1897, Page 11

THE BOARD OF CONCILIATION.

THE FURNITURE TRADE. A meeting of the Board of Conciliation for the Industrial District of O ago and Southland was held at the Supreme Court on Thursday,, when there were present — Messrs W. A. Sim (chairman), Q. P. Farquhar, R. Ferguson, and G. L. Sise. Mr J. A. Millar, M.H.R., wrote apologising for his non-attendance, and stated that he had to go to Wellington. The business before the board was to consider the following reference from the Furniture Trades' Union : — Duneilio, January 29. To tbe Clerk of the Board of Conciliation. Whereas a conference having b.'en held on Monday, the 14th December, 1896, at the Dunedin Ct>ffi*o Palace, between representatives of the Punedin United Furniture • rades' Union of Workers and representatives of the employers in the furniture trade, when the attached agreement was unanimously adopted. The following firms having refused to sign this agreement, we now appeal to the Board of Conciliation for enforcement of their signatuies :— Brundell and Bayward, John Shaw, John Gillies, F. A. Hooper and Co., A. Lorie and Co., P. Laing, Alex. Watt, and F. C. Martin. Signed on behalf of the xinion. Edward Gf.ougk War.'>, president. Jlknry Manning Stewart, vice-president. FIIAKCIS J. EUTTKRKIELO. The tollowing is the agreement referred to:— This agreement, made in pursuance of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1834, this 23rd day of December, lS!)t>, between the Duuedin United Furniture Trade Industrial Union of Workers and the employers whose signatures appear at the foot hereof, and shall remain in force for a period of one year. First — That the minimum wag* bo 8s per day ; all the prices in exhibits A and B are agreed to per piecework, auy reductions for machinery to lie lettled between employers and employees, any dispute on this point to be settled by an equal number from each side. Second. — All overtime to be paid time and a-quarter and piece 3d per hour above stated prices. / 3,'hird.— That all cabinetmakers employed on chairs and framework be paid the s»me as cabinetmakers. Sp-cial lines not mentioned in the log to be Bettled by a conference of three delegates nominated by the union and three chosen by the employers. EMPLOYMENT OF APPRENTICES. No arrangement in existence at the date of this agreement shall be interfered with, excepting that the yearly increase of wages is to be 5s per ■week first, then a rise of 5a per week at the commencement of each subsequent year. The proportion of apprentices to le one apprentice to every three men, or fraction of three. For tbe purpose of determining the proportion of boys to journeymen a given number of men must have been employed in any »hop or factory for the previous six months, equal to two-thirds full time. Only two classes of labour shall be recognised— viz., apprentices and journeymen. 'Signed on behalf of the union. Edward Geo. Ward, president. Henry Manning Stewart, vice-president. William George Files, secretary. Employers : Scoullar and Chisholv. J. Hoff. M'Kenzie and Sanders. J. Mueller. Peter Adamson. Ellis a'-d Smyth. "W m Nees. Wji. Parker and Co. Geo. Fleury. A. C. Siewart. Jas. A. Marlow. Messrs H. M. Stewart, E. G. Ward, and F. J. Butterneld represented the Furniture Trades Union, and the following employers were present: — Messrs A. Lorie, C. H. Hayward. John Shaw, Alex. Watt, J. Gillies, F. Laing, and F. A. Hooper (who had not signed the agreement), and Mr R. Chisholm. The Chairman, haviDg briefly stated what was the business before the board, asked for the names of those who were to appear for the union. Messrs Stewart, Ward, and ButterSeld handed in their authorities from the union to appear on their behalf. The Chairman then asked if the employer! intended to conduct their case individually, or if they had arranged for one of their number to . speak for them. Mr Hooper: We have had a meeting, and come to an arrangement, which is in writing and signed. The Chairman : Do you mean you have come to an arrangement with the union? Mr Hooper : No, amongst ourselves. The Chairman •■ Will each employer reprelent himself ? After the employers had consulted among themselves, Mr Lorie intimated that thej irc'shed him to represent them in the matter. The Chairman: Are all the employer! her* whose names are in the order ol

, reference as not h*vi'?g signed the agree- ! ment ? ! i Mr Hooper : All cave Mr Martin, and he has • i asked me to represent him. ' , The Chairman aeked Mr Stewart whether he t was sntisaed that there w»s really an industrial din, ute. Mr Stewart said he felt convinced that there , was, inasmuch a 6 employers who were present had absolutely refused to sign the , agreement. j The Chairman : Do you think that is an I industrial dispute within the meaning of the j act? I Mr Stewart : I certainly think it is. j The Chairman said it seemed to him that i there was some doubt about it. The board j could inquire into the matter and see what I there was between the paities, and try to bring j them together ; but if the union took it further j there might be some question as to whether , there was a dispute. Mr Stewart said he 'took it that if the board's recommendations were not adopted by both oides it would be necessary to go further, bub . the union's representatives were of opinion, j aud held the hope, that on the case as laid ' before the board a settlement would be arrived J at, aud that those who had refused to siga wou'd see, uot altogether the necessity, but the convenience of iloiug so. The union felt that it was absolutely unfair to the employtrs who had ( sigued tho agreement that others in the trade ; should be outside of' it. The Chairman i I suppose those who refuse , to sign object to some points in tha agree- | ment ? • Mr Stewart did not know the reasons, but he i would tender evidence to show that the i employers had given diversified reasons for not i signing, and the reasons that applied in one ' case wou'd not hold good with another. . Amongst those employers present to-day were ' those who assisted iv drawing up the agreement. I The Chairman : The union have different j disputes with different employers. Mr Stewart : The only thing is the refusal to ! sign. ' The Chairman said that so far as the boxrd were concerned it did not matter much in what form the question c»m* before them ; but, looking at the complaint, it seemed doubtful whether this was an industrial dispute within the mean- > ing of the *ct, and supposing the board failed to 1 bring the parties to a settlement the Arbitration Court might say that the union had not properly raised the matter?, and the union would then J have to begin de novo. ' Mr Stewart : In that case we shall be told, I { suppose, how to go about it. We are more amateurs so far as the legal aspect of the case is j concerned, but we have endeavoured to keep as j near to the reading of the act as our judgment directs us. ' , The Chairman said he did not mean that the ! board did not wish to inquire, but supposing ' they went on with the matter and failed to bring i - about an agreement between the parties, and j the matter came before the Arbitration Court, that court might say, " You have not brought the matter legally before us." That was the difficulty. Mr Stewart : I shall take it upon myself to say that if anything of that nature arises no blame whatever, so far as the union is concerned, will be laid to the board. Mr Lorie said, speaking for the employers, they were willing, for the purpose of settling the thing that day, that it should be considered a dispute, and they waived all technicalities. They did not think they should have bsea ; brought before the board, but, being present, they would waive that. Mr P. Laing (of the D.I C.) said that he i was not one of the disputants, although his ! name appeared on the list. He would like to explain that his company did not employ L cabinetmakers, but supplied their own timber i and bought back the goods from the cabinetmakers. There was no dispute between his I company and the men. Mr Ward asked whether the D.I.C. did not i employ polishers and upholsterers. Mr Laing said they did. I The Chairman: We can inquire into that ; later, Mr Laing, and if we find that you are interested the recommendation can extend to » you. Mr Laing : In the meantime I don'fc think it is necessary for me to wait. [The speaker then ■ retired.] Mr Stewart, in opening the case for the X union, said it was not his intention to occupy r any more of the time of the board than was actually necessary to do justice to the side he 3 represented. Neither was it his intention to E indulge ia anything approaching vituperation

or personalities. And he hoped, at the coucluuon of the investigation, that whatever recommendations were teudered by the board e»ch side would show their appreciation of the Legislature in besitovring aucb » boon as these courts by cheerfully accepting such recommendations. Of course it would be necessary for him to engage the attention of the board *', some length, as the course he proposed to adopt was to show the reason for forming the union, its formation, and what had led up to the present action, and to show that in no instance had the union adopt°d discourtesy or resorted to threats of a strike. He adopted this 1 course because arnongnt those who were parties to the suib were gentlemen who had played an important pirt in the formation of the union and assisted largely in constructing the present agreement, and the refusal on their part to sign it had rendered abortive the advantages gained by the union, for the men felt that it would be an unfair demand to compel those who had already signed the agreement to comply with the j conditions contained therein while others in the i trade were gcanted au immunity from those con- j ditions From the provisions 01 the Industrial ; Conciliation and Arbitration Act it would be seen that the union's present attitude was as much «.n act of justice to those employers who had sigued the agr^emenn as it was » mevsure of advantage to themselves. In pursuing thft course he proposed he would point out that, however unanimous the parties might be that d^y iv their objections to sign the agreement, their position wai untenable on account of the diversified resvous given to tho delegates from the union appointed to -wx.it upon them. In opening the case, he would like permission to read au extract from an article in one of the local journals showing the condition of the furniture trade in Dunedin. The article in question was written at the time of tho investigations of that journal with reference to Chinese labour, and express-id exactly the state of the trade »s existing in Dacedin, and in better language than he could put it. Mr Stewart, having read the article referred to by him, said that ie showed the absolute necessity for such an institution as a furniture trades union in Dunedin. He might say that in July of last year an advertisement appeared calliogupon the worker?, ia the furniture trade iv Duuedin to meet iv the Zsalaadia Chambers iv D jwling street for the purpose ot forming a uoioa. At that meeting it wai decided by those present to form a union. The meeting was called by the executive of the Trades and Labour Council, and the secretary, Mr Slater, who presided, in his add rats said that in conversation with Mr Lorie on the deplorable state of the furniture trade in Dunedin that gentleman had said it was absolutely necewary that a union should be formed, and that if Mr Slater could form .such a union he would give £10 to the funds of that union. The anion was formed, and Mr Lorie paid the £10 he had promised. This ihowed that Mr Lorie, who was a party to the dispute, and refused to sign the agreement, was of opinion that the trade was in a ve^y bad condition, that a union was absolutely necessary, that wages should be increased, and that the condition of the worker should be better all round. The union had not been formed to create friction between the employers and employees. As a matter of fact, it was distinctly laid down to the contrary in the rules, and that no unfair demands were to be made on tho employers. The action the promoters of the uuion had taken in getting the co-operation of the others connected with the trade could not in any way be construed into *£ts of intimidation or threats. In the course of the formation of the union the members had had no intention of compelling by threats of any kind other members of the trade joining the union. The union having now been fairly established brought him to the time when the log wai submitted to the employers. That log was submitted along with a letter notifying that the prices were to come into operation on and after November 12 last, and asking the employers to take the log into consideration and to give a reply before the date mentioned. Tne principal endeavour of the uuion was that all correspondence- that took place between them and the employers should be courteous and that nothing in the shape of a threat should be resorted to. None of the employers who were that day present had vouchsafed tha courtesy of a reply to the letter above mentioned He would however say, in justice to Mr Lorie, that that gentlemen wns absent from Dunedin at the time, and coniequently could not reply. Finding that only * few of the others had extended the courtesy to reply, and not wishing to precipitate matters, a letter was sent to the various employers asking for a conference, with

the result th*<-. a conference between the employers and employees w*« held. It would be necessary for him to read what took pluce-at ' that conference in order to show that certain of ! the employers *t that conference, but who were I now parlies in the dispute, conttibuted largely j to the passing of the resi>luUo»n for the adopI tion of the union's log. [Mi- Stewart here read the report of the conference held iv December in the Coffee Pa-lace, and which his already be?n pub iahed in oar columns]. Mr Stewart (continuing) said he desired to draw particular attention to the fact that it was Mr Blundell who was now opposing it, who proposed that the log be taken in its entirety, and that notice be sent to all employers of its adoption. Two or thcoa.days after the conference * letter from Mr Lorie was published in the Ot*go Daily Times, and in this letter the -renter offered to accept tha union's log iv its entirety on the following conditions : — " (1) That they limit the uumber of apprentices in a shop to not more than one to five journey?aen ; (2) that they recognise no labour other ! than apprentices or journeymen ; (3) that their l;ig provides for first-class work. Mr Lorio added that if the other employers would not agree to thii he would suggest that the union ! appeal to the Arbitration Court at once, and in ■ the meantime, if the men found it uecesasry to go out, he would find work for several firstolaM men at union log prices. The union endeavoured to got exactly the conditions laid rfowu by Mr Locie, bufc finding they couli! not get all they a«ked for they modified them down to what appeared in the agreement. Ho did not think Mr Lorio would object to one apprentice to three men as being an unfair proportion of apprentice?. At the necoud conference Mr Hay ward represented the firm of Mea.-trs Blundell and Hayward, and by voting was actually a party to the construction of the agreement, and yet fco-day he was found , aoaongsb those who refused to sign it. Hb ! would goint out that it was the action of the j employers ;tt the conference. At the conferI euce Mr Hayward, of Messrs Blundell and ' Hayward, was actually a iparty to tho drawing up of the agreemsat at the conference that had j induced the employers who had tsigaed the j agreement to do so. I'he union thought they j had uofehing else to do than bo send the agraenient round to tb.B various employers and have it signed, but what wan their surprise to find that not only som<? of those who htd tak^n no part in the conference, but aoms of those who helped oo draw up the agreement refused io sign it. Consequently, delegates from tho 1 UDion were instructed to ascertain from those j who refused to sign their reasons io? co | refusing. Whatever mighb be their reason* j to-day, aud he uuderstoad from what had beau said at the opening of the proceed 'Uga that they were now unanimous, at that biroe their reasons for refusiug to fiigu wera very different one from another. Consequently tho union obj'cbsd so far a» they could 1o all tha employers coming under one heading, so far as objections were concerned. Mr Gillies, j when asked what hia objections wore, said i thera was a great deal ia the log bait; wanted • consideration, that he had not hid time to go ' fully into the matte-, and, further, that a* au 1 old and experienced cabinetmaker himself he ; should have besn on the conference. Of' course, i it wan no pact o? the duty of the union to i appoint thosa who were to represent the employers at the conference. A* a matter of fact, no objections vj^re then ucjjed as to the incompleteness of the log, a« to any of the prices being exorbitant or the condition? unfair. Ths firm of Bl'in'lell and H»y<vard refused on the ground that they wore averse to being bound, notwithstanding the t'aeis tbafc . they wore a party to the drawing up of the i agreemant. They, howevar, eaid they wera ( going to pay log wages, aa they considered they r were fair. Mr Hooper, ha understood, refused ] simply on the ground of antipa'hy to unionism —that ha would have nothing whatever to do j with unions. He said he paid a fair rate of I wages, but refused to bo bound by any agreej ment, though be did not say the conditions ! were unfair, the log prices too high, or that the I proportion of bays to men was unfair. Not \ one of these people had, he thought, given a ■ reasonable excuse. j Mr Hooper said he did obj80(s to an excessita j price in the log. Mr Butterfisld : One article, you did. Mr Stewart said he would accept Mr Hooper* assurance that he had made that objection, bat he had understood from the report oE the delegates that his only objection was his antipathy to union*. Mr Hooper : Yes, and the other matters too. Mr Stewart (continuing) said Mr Lorie'i objection to signing the agreement wai that Messra Ssoullar aud Ohisholm had aa unfair • proportien of boya to the number of men they employed. Mr Chisholm : It i« aot true. Mr Stewart said he had nothing to do with whether the statement were true or not ; he was merely giving Mr Loria's obj action as stated to the delegates from the uuion. Mr Lorie said if the union would prevail upon Scoullar and Chiiholm to discharge some of their boys and bring the number down to the proportion stated in the agreement, and the machinery clause was amended, he would sign the agreement. However unanimous the employers might now be in their objections, they had until now been very diverse. With reference to Mr Watt, that gentleman said the state of trade would not justify the demands of the union, and that the anion would do bstter to accept a 10 per cent, increase at first, and then if trade warranted it later on to make other demands. As to Mr Martin, hia objections, he (Mr Stewart) believed, were entirely on conscientious grounds — not aa to price or to the conditions laid down, but Bimply on religious grounds. It was reported to the nnioa by the delegates that lie Watts profeased a religion which, forbade him entering

into uny agreements. As to Mr Shaw, he had always led the union to believe that he was in entire sympathy with them, and that their demand*), being fair and reasonable, would have bis support, and that if anything in the ahape of an agreement was drawn up he would bo willing to fall in with other employers and sign it. The fl»mo taswer was obtained from Mr Gillies. The tradn, he said, was iv a bad state, the men were poorly paid, and he was quite willing to fall iv with whatever tho other employers did to itnprov» things. Now, a majority of the employers had signed the agreement. It was only for 12 months, and two months of the year for which the agree- ! ment wks to exist had passed, so that it could hardly be considered unfair to ask the others ' to sign fur this shorb period ot 10 months, at tha cud of which there would bo Ample opportunity of discussing anything that was found to be irritating ; and ihose who were now required to sign would, in doing so, airaply corae under the same arrangaments as tho rest of the employers, which would be a fair thiugv aud at the tame time they would ba helping !w put the trade on a sound and fair basis. The Chairman asked what the position would be if the board decided to recommend the em> ployers so sign, provided certain modifications were made ? Were the employers who had •signed it absolutely bound P Mr Stewart replied that that would place tha union iv an awkward position. Already they had a majority of employers niguiDg it. If alteration* were made it would nconssiUte the union interviewing all the employers who h%<l nigned as to whether th«y would agree to sign another agreement;, and th« union might expflc 1 ! a refusal, inasmuoh as the new agreement would ba proceeding from a minority, and if this' refusal were made the majority would have to be brought to the board or to the court, and if a fresh award were made the miuoritj ight 1 not consent, aud io the trouble would go on. The Ch»irma.u : Then it is limply this agree* ment or nothing at all ? ■ Mr Stewart thought that was the pisition, and he believed that from tha evidence that would be adduced the board would see its way to adviae the employovs to sign the agreement. It would only be for 10 nxontha. At the end of that time things would have to bo readjusted in all probability. Perhaps the union might; then ask for moro fchau taay had. For one thiug, they would |»o in for having apprentices legally bound. Buh that was outsida the present bini« ne»s. All he wished to b'jow was that at thi expiry of the 10 months the employers would hive au opportunity of discussing a fresh agreameafc. The Chsirmaii suggested that it would be better to hear thft other side before calling evidence, and this course was adopted. I Mr Lorie then roao and said :Mr Chairman and gentlemen, I think wheu you have heard what'l propose to «*y you will agree with me that this bnsineas neod never have coma before you. In order to make the position perfectly clear I propose, with yonr consent, to traoe the present nuvera'nt to lie origin, which tvat, as perhaps you arc aware, a mooting of the ! workers of my urni, waica w« convened In ordec to siffc a charge of sweating which had beei brought against u» by a cerSaio. newspaper, *ni \ to which meeting wo invited the Trades %ni Labour Council iv order that tho matter might ba thoroughly investigated. A 4 its close I took ! the opportunity of interviewing Mr Slater, who I had attended as sscretary of the Trades and Labour Council, and iv the coarse of th» conversion which foilowsd I learned from him that although ho eoald see no avidonce of dia- ! Bdttftfaouon sni'jnjj our ocnployees he was of opinion that oar. cabinetmakers wore, in ommon with those of other firms, earning Far i les« than skilled worker* should do. I thoroughly ! Agreed with him, but pointed oaf; that; as we I were already working this department at a j loss we could not do more for our employees > uatil oSher firais did the same. Briefly, the result of onr interview was that I encouraged Mr Slater to form the men into a uiv.on by » promise ot a donation of £10 to its funds as soon n* it should be incorporated, f n>9 may be fairly taken a* the initiatory catue of our fcfting brought hare to-day, tince Mr Slater, with his ohar»et*ristic energy, at onoa got tho S men together aud combined them into a legMtyoonstitnted union. The n«fc notification we had of the union's existence was a request tw attend a meeting convened for the purpose of considering the question of Chinese labour. This meeting I attended. Some time affcerwjirds the union *»ked employers to meet them to discuss ths question of log and wage*, but aa I was absent from the colony at the time I cannot say what business was transacted, bat i understand that the meeting lapsed. The naxt intimation I had from the union was a notifio*tion that a conference with employer* was called for .Monday evening, Dacember 7, to again discuss the question of log and wages. This, I may explain, was sent to me from my office on Dacember 5, I being confined to my hoase at the time. Recognising the denirability of immediate action, and being unable to coma into town personally, I at once communicated with Mr Slater, whom I asked to adverti«e ameeting of employers for Monday afternoon, so a» to allow an opportunity for discussing the qaeation before meeting the union. It will thus be seen that I lost no time in taking action. Unf ortnnately tha majority of employer* did not trouble themselves to attend the meeting, but two of them having turned up who wera thoroughly practical men we at once act to work to consider the log. which was to be diioui*ed with the anion that evening, the result being that we were prepared to meet the men with propositions which we felt were in every sense equitable. When, however, the meeting opened it wm loon mide evident to v* that no discussion was contemplated by the men. They had their log cut and dried, and that they intended to carry, and as they were unfortunately encouraged ia this attitude by a ptominenft

employer present a deadlock ensued. In vain I pointed out to them that owing to its omission, to deal with the question of boy labour the log was worthless ; the men would have vit in no way interfered with, and even the vice-f&esident stated that "the union looked upon ib as a piece of presumption to dictate to employers on the subjeot." Their log and nothing but their log would the men have, and although they had absolutely no precedent in the Australasian colonies for demanding 93 per day, this they insisted on, and to such an extent refused discus uon that in reply to a motion that five delegate* frrim the union jneefc five employers the president went so Far as to say that "the union had given the employers plenty of opportunities, and he flid not see why they should continue to hold meetings to discuss the thing." I would ask you, gentlemen, what justification there was lor threatening language of this kind at what w«« the first opportunity I had of meeting the Union, and what was certainly only the second meeting ever convened to discuss this matter ? towards the close of the meeting, however, Which ended at a very late hour, ib was resolved ttiat the meeting should be adjourned in order that those employers who did not approve the log should have an opportunity of submitting their proposals for its ameudment. During tho time which elapsed between the meetings, leveral employers, at prolonged sittings, went Again and again very thoroughly into every Item mentioned in the log, with the result that they were prepared to enter into an agreement With the men as soon as an understanding was Borne to. On the adjourned meeting taking blace it seemed as though a prompt settlement Would be arrived at. Mr Slater had been lecured as chairman, and as he impressed on the union the necessity of settliag the boy question, and suggested a conference to settle Anything in dispute, it seemed as though any difficulties would be speedily overcome. It Was, however, soon apparent that opposition Has to come from the most prominent offioial bl the union, since on my moving that the union Dominate six of their number to confer with the Bix employers present, the very president of the union actually seconded an amendment which, if carried, would have completely destroyed the union, since it provided for the Abolition of a minimum wage. With such obstruction you will not be surprised to learn that the meeting was again adjourned, although cix employers were prepared to thoroughly discuss the matter with union delegates. The pecond adjourned meeting it was impossible for me to attend, as my presence was absolutely necessary at a public meeting elsewhere, which had been some time advertised, but in order that my views might be before the uniou I wrote very fully to Mr Slater requesting him to lay them before the delegates. To my surprise I learned that Mr Slater was nob permitted to read my letter. What passed at the meeting in my mbsence is the cause of my being brought bsfore you to-day. Certain employers, who saw the opportunity to pass a log which was in no way binding on them, lost no time in doing so, the result of the meeting being that the union conceded Is per day and accepted an agreement which, owing to the infamous machinery clause embodied in it, completely nullifies the whole log. The boy question, too, was left in a most unsatisfactory state. And this is the sort of agreement which was brought to me to sign. I contend that Mr Stewart, in referring bo my letter to the Star, in reply to "Zsta," should in fairness have explained that whilst I agreed to accept their log as it was then printed it is on account of thesa important alterations that I now refuse to sign it. Very naturally I objected to do so. My whole efforts hud bsen turned in the direction of improving the condition of the trade, and it was ridiculous to suppose that I should become a party to an egresmenb which is in no sense binding. lat once pointed out to the union what alterations .■were required in the way of restricting boy labour and employers' possible exorbitant deductions for the use of their machinery, bub Jrom that day to this nob one word of acknowledgment ha.v« I received from the union. When I learned that the question was to be brought before the court I again made an effort to get the nutter settled by asking the Trade 3 and Labour Council to urge the union to draw up a more complete agreement, bub again I received no reply. Briefly, my objections to the agreement are as follow : — (1) Boys : The agreement provides that whilst only one boy to three men is to be permitted, "existing arrangements are not to be interfered with," this, I understand, being on the ground that it would be unjust to boys now employed to throw them out. I answer this by replying that to retain the;e boys would be still more nnjusb to the men, who should have the work these boys are doing ; besides which there need be no injustice done, since the boys who are employed in excess of the allowed number can, if they have been any length of time at the trade, be released from their apprenticeship and put on the log as journeyman. If they have not been long at the trade they will suffer far less injustice by being put off now than by serving more years at a trade which cannot even now employ those who have already learned it. Besides, too, the injustice to workers, it is evident that those who only employ their fair proportion of boys cannot compete with those who get the greater part of their work done by them, as has notoriously been the case with a certain large firm in this tity for years past, who at one time last year Smployed as many as six boys to one journeyman ; and which firm, although employing more taen now, will doubtless go back to this state of wings by discharging their men if the union's proposed agreement is signed by all employers, since the agreement expressly stipulates that this infamous thing can be done. Now, in dealing with this boy question, I have so far only done Bo from the point of view that the boys are, although not l&ullT-boand ajoorentioei, yet

treated as such by their employers Wnea, however, I mention that I have ju«t been iv- ' formed on the bast authority that bjys in the past have been either dismissed or put on short , tirag- whenever the emp'oyer wished, it will bs ssen that there is not the slightest reasau for saying it will bs unjust to replace them with men. (2) Machinery : This clame as it at present stands completely nullifies any lor, since it is quite possible for an unscrupulous employer to deduct anything he pleases from i the log, and yet strictly comply with it in a legal ienne. I insist that the amount to be deducted be either limited to a percentage or else clearly shown on the log;, which is not a matter of difficulty. There is also another way by whioh this might be settled, by allowing no deduction to be made for machinery, which would mean that only day workers would be employed in connection with it. (3) The log itself will at oncn ba seen to be an auomtly, since it was admittedly compiled on the basis of a much higher wage than the men now ask. The result will be that only those worker a who are well worth the union waga will get employment, whioh will mean that all the half-skilled or elderly workers will be thrown out. This U not deniable, and cm be averted if the log is reduced to a b*si« of the wage now Asked. Ibis I possible that iv asking th*t tho log ba adjusted I to the wage asked I may be charged wi'.h bring- . ing down wages, but this I can answer by pointing out that in my letter of December 12 to Mr Slater I agreed to pay the log as printed, or 9* per day, provided , this was" enforced oa all employers ; but ' as the men have now agreed to aooeps , 8s per day from other employers I cannot, of course, pay more on the log. I think, gentleman, I have said sufficient to show that it is owing to no fault of ours that we are here to-day. From first to last we have made every endeavour to come to an understanding with the m9n, but they are so blind to the imperfections of their proposed agreement; that they i will not admit the necessity for amending it. 1 Throughout, my position - has been most unpleasant. The .men should know that I have always loyally supported unionism, one of the mosb successful societies in the colonies having been founded by me, and I think I am justified in saying th»t this very Faruituremakera' Union would nob be in existence but for my action; yet because I will not be a party to an agreement which, if adopted, will certainly wreck the whole affair, I have been charged with opposing unioniira and vili9ad in all directions. In the fuce of this, genttemea, I wish to state plainly that in the future, as iv the past, unionism will have my thorough support ; bub this must not ba taken to mean that I will allow any union to take from me the control of my own business. Uaioa«, jusb aa much as individuals, must be prepared to advance good reasons for any desired changes, and not, as in the present instance, adopt the " Stand and deliver ! " principle. So far, however, as the past is concerned I am desirous of forgetting it. I quite underiband that inexperienced union officials are liable at flrat to make mistakes, and in tho present instance I think that those employers who had an axe to grind deliberately misled the men, and are more to blame for what has happened than the men themselves. So far as the future is concerned, I must ask the union to accept my assurance that I shall be pleased to confer with them at any time, provided, of course, I am approached in a conciliatory spirit. The eridince I hwo adduced will satisfy you thit this matter would have been amicably settled oti Decembsr 10 if the man hid m<jti us in conference on that date, as wis suggested. As they did not do so th^y mint not now throw ths onin of delay on any bub themselves. So far as this dispute is concerned there is practically nothing between us except that we, tho employers, occupy the unique position of refusing to sign the agreement because certain conditions contained in it are not sufficiently binding oa ourselves. We know there arc unreliable employers in ths trade, and we are determined tb.s,t they shall sign an agresmanfc which shall j be binding on them insteid of the present ■ miserable abortion, which binds tkana to nothing. I feel confideat that th^ men will see their i'olly iv opposing the conditions wa stipulats for, which they shonM Bee are ' entirely in their own interests ; aud I feel sure i they will settle the mttter as we desire it. They have wisely made their rate of w»ge3 the same as that ruling elsewhere, bub in connection with this I wish to place on record my opinion that later on the men will b3 justified in approaching the employers for an increase. Personally I pledge mysslf to support; their claims if business warrants it, and in order that they may be satisfied iv that direction I will hold my books at the disposal of any registered accountant they may nominate to inspect them. This should, I think, satisfy the union that I consider their interests identic*! with my own. I think, gentlemen, you will uphold me in my refusal to sign the union's I proposed agreement. Should you do so I would respectfully ask that your decision bs in such terms th*t the public may know that the stand I have taken has been quite as much in the interests of the men as of myself. In conclusion, Mr Lorie said that he represented the other employers, and that they had gone exhaustively into the question of the log, this being considered on the basis of the men's log, and with one exception, as to the 9s a day, every item had been balloted for by four men sitting in different parts of the room. The resolutions come to, which practically did not differ from the men's log, were as follow :— 1. That the undersigned, employing the majority of the furniture workers in Dunedin, agree to pay the rate of wages asked by the union, but object to the log, as it was admittedly framed by the union on * much higher basis than the wage novr asked. 2. That ths undersigned accept the polishers' 1 wage and log in toto. 3. That the agreement as proposed by the

Furniture Wurkeis' Union be not accepted, as in addition to the anomaly of the log it makes no • provision for immediately dealing with the ques- ; tiou of b'iy labour, aud also because the machinery clause which it embodies completely nullifies any -possible log. 4. That the log referred to as altered in red ink ba proposed to the union as calculated in the opinion of tho undersigned to five ths men the wage they a3k, aivi that the agreement referred ! to a<? altered in red ink be p'Ooojert to the union i as calculated to effectually deal with the boy and machinery queHtion. A. Louie and Co. F. A. Hooper a\d Co. John Shaw. Blundell * Hayward. Alex Wati\ John Gillies. Frances C. Martin. Mr Stewart asked whether these resolutions were endorsed by the whole of the employers present;. Mr Liria : By the whole of them. Tne board then adjourned for luncheon. On resuming the other employers intimated, iv answer to the chairman, that; they had nothing to say. Mr Ward was about to reply to Mr Lorie, bub The Chairman, said it was nob advisable for the repcewnUbives of the union to make I separate speeches. | Mr Ward said with regard to the alteration I in the original agreement there was a cl*use d-ia'ing wifch machinery, and the employers who amended ths agreement recommended that the reductions tor machinery should not exceed 15 I psr cent. S j far as he could see, that would ' sot do any harm to the union, aud he was : inclined to think that it would bo rather a benefit thau otherwise. Mr Sim: D) you thin'c that the other employers who h»ve signed the agreement will be likely to agree to th*b modification ? Mf Ward r I cannot say as to that, bub if the employers who have submitted this will be will-in^-fco induce the other, employees to accept; ib I I think the union will do so. He proceeded to { cay that ht intended to poinb out lh»t if employers folt d'i3s»tis3ed they CDuld pub on day labour at a minimum wage. Ths employers had two alternatives — either to pay the prio« of th<» log, or 131 3 give the men day wages, paying 8« as the minimum wage. With regard to the question of apprentices, the agreement said : "Tae proportion of apprentices to bs one apprenbice to every three men or fraotion of three." and the following clause had bnan added: "Auynumbar at present employed in excess to ba dispensed with ou adoption or log." That he regarded as another proposal in favour of the union, 'bacause it meant that if the labour of boys was dispensed with men would be required. Mr Sim : How do you think other employers who li*ve nob aigned the agreement will regard it? Mr Ward said if the employers who had signed the agrearnsnt could induce the others to do so ib would bs to the interest of the union ; but he did not think ib should be thrown upon the union to induce the employers to do so. Wlvle referring to the question of apprentice!*, he might say that he thought the bo/ difficulty was at the bottom of bhe whole question. He served his time as a boy in this town, and had had six years' experience in the furaibure trade in Victoria, and hud coma to work hsre, and he had come to tho conclusion that this boy question was the real difficulty. A number of boys were employed, and in a gre»t many case 3 they wore no 1 } properly taughb their trade. The consequeace was that men had to compete with boy labaur. It was nob for the union to interfere with the way in which a man conducted his business and it wan not their intention to do sd; bub at the same time he thoughb that it was generally considered that ib required a mju of fair brains and skill to make furniture, aud ecaoloyers should recognise this aud give gojd men the preference of employment befora boys. He thought that Doys hid a great dsal bo do with the present plate of thing*. The only question was, Whai j boys were to be dispensed with ? Taere were plenty of boys that had been two or tares years at tha trade and had got on fairly well, and ib would ba rather hard to propose to dispense with them. Bat iv the case of boys who h*d only bsan six mouths or so at their trade, it would bs better for them in the end if thoy were dispensed with. Taen boys should be pub on log prices, as ib was hardly right to put them on piesework. Whea a man want on piecework he generally tried to get through ib as quickly us possible. As regards a boy, his duby was bo leirn his trade, and if he was pub on piecework bhe bendeucy would be for him to scs,mp his work aud so turn out a bad workman. Now the objscb of the union was to try and induce men to do a better class of work. He knew th(j> it might be said that there was always a demand for cheap articles, bub articles that were well made lasted longer, and were in the end cheaper. Mr Ward procaeded to criticise a number ot ifcetns on the log oubmitted by the employers represented by Me Lorie, and instanced the reductions to £1 183 for a full-Scotch chest of drawers, £1 15 < for a three-quarter chest, £1 8s for a half-ctj«st, and £1 5s for a six-drawer chest as modifications which broughb prices too low — on the basis of 88 per day. He contended that a fair average man should be paid 8s a day, and that a man who was above the average should have the benefit of his skill. \ Mr Chisholm on being ask.-id his opinion of the modifications suggesbed, said that he accepted the log as it stood as fair and reasonable, bub naburally would not, as an employer, object to a reduction of prices if the union wished it. It would be an utter impossibility to sbabe in any log wh&b allowance was to ba made for machinery, unless it were stipulated what machinery was to be allowed for. Ib waa much fairer, as the log now provided, that this matter should ba left to be settled between the employers and the men, according, ta ,t»w far

there was machinery in the place to do th« work. He had gono over the log very carefully, and though he found slight variations occasionally, some above and some below what had been paid, on the whole the articles mentioned ! in the log at the rates specified came out as nearly as possible at the prices his firm had been paying. He could not off-hand pronounce any opinion on the m idiftoatiuun suggested ; it would be unfair to expect him to do so ; but if it wis tho desire of the union to get loss, he , was boh so scrupulous an emoloyor as 60 decline to p*y less. It would b« folly to say he would not accept such a propasal. If, however, he understood the matter aright, the oruoial point was not so much the alteration of figure* in the log as the other matters which had been referred to. H« was extremely sorry tho personal element had been introduced, but had no doubt the board would take a fair view of the matter, and attach only what importance was proper to the remark* that had been made as to the employment of boys and on the machinery question. These questions had been carefully coaoidered at tho conference. It would be very diffisult to fix an equ'table o.llowanoe for machinery. Ou nixuy article* an allowance of 15 per oeat. would be much too high, aud other* ie would be ridiculously low. His contention was that the matter could be best aud matt equitably regulated in the manner suggested in the original agreement. I Sir Sim remarked that tho 15 per cent, was i merely a maximum. I Mr Chisholm replied that the tendenoy would always be to deduct the maximum. The matter , could be far better settled in the way that had besn agreed upon, and as all employes*, he believed, were members of the uniou, any dispute might easily be brought forward. The other ppiot touched upon was a very difficult one. He was not so enamoured with boy labour at some appeared to think. He ventured to make the statement that if certain employers had conceived it to bs to their advantage to get boy labour they would have got it, and would have been most eager to secure it. Mr Lorie: Pirdon me, I think we are hardly here for raoriminations. ' Mr Chisholm said he made the remark simply became his firm had been referred to by Mr Lorie. Mr Sim remarked that what wai wantfld was not so much discussion as Mr Chiaholm'a views on the suggested modifications. Mr Chisholm said that if the majority of employers thought that 15 per cent, should ba the maximum allowed for machinery no one would fall in with the arrangement more readily than he would. He had never given any evidence of being unreasonable in these matters, but as ho hid said he considered it a vury difficult matter to fix a percentage that, would be equitable. As to the proposal now made respecting apprentice^ he should not object to its coining into operation at oDce. That would show how mucn importxnee he attached to the employment of boys, so far as the interest of the firm were concerned. Tho only injury and injustice he could see would be what was dono to the bays themselves. If the board chfMe to go to his factory, and after seeing it should say the number of boys was too large and considered it advisable, he would ditch%rge three or four of them, or if the board thought proper, the whole of them. No difficulty should be nmde out of the employment of boys by bis firm ; that should not stand in the way of a sflttlamenfc. For the last 20 yeirs they had pursued the same policy at their factory. Sixteen men and 10 boys were employed in the factory. Their practice was, aud had besn for the last 20 years, to take on two boya every year, and the apprenticeship was for five years, bo that thoy had 10 apprentices. Two of these would leave during the present and two during the following year, so that thi>) matter would soon rectify itself. If, at h^ had said, bhe board thought he *houlcl dispense with the boyg at once ; that should ba done most williogly. The fact wai if; did not pay to employ boys, and his offer would show the degree of importance he attached to their employment. As to the boys not learning their trade, the'Tininuatious that had been thrown out were quite baseless so far aa Scoullar aud Cliisholm's factory was concerned. Two-thirds of the men now in their employ, from the foreman down, b»d learned their trade with the firm, and constantly letters were being received from Australia and other places asking them to send any of their apprentices to the writers, who would find them emp'oyment when they were out of their time, ao satisfactory had been the experience of firms at a distance concerning lads who had learned their trade with his firm. As he had s&id in this matter, and in the matter of allowance for machinery, he would willingly bow to the decision of the board, though he considered that if a maximum was fixed it should be 20 per cent. The better plan, however, was, he believed, to letve ifc us & nutter of arrangement in accordance with th« agreement that had been accepted by a majority of the employers. The Chairman suggested that an adjournment should be made so as to allow consideration of the suggestions made and in order that the union might ascertain the views of their own men, and also the views of the other employers who signed the agreement respecting the suggeited modifications. This w»s agreed to, and the board adjourned at 3 4-0 p.m.

Sir John Power and Son, Distillers, Dublin, j Established a.d. 1791. Special Pot Still Whisky. Perfect purity iiuured. The fine flavour and delicacy of this whisky are well known to the trade and to consumers. Protected by the guarantees of the Government and the Distillers, and being in all cases shippei from Distillery Warehouse, j Oases, octaves, and quarters,— Mackerras amd \ Hazlbtt. Aeents. DunedV-