DISPUTE IN THE TAILORING TRADE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2275, 7 October 1897, Page 16

DISPUTE IN THE TAILORING TRADE.

A sitting of the Conciliation Boird was commenced in the Supreme "Court on -Monday after- j noon for the purpose of considering a clispute, j referred to it, between th« Operative Tailoia' Society and the master tailors of Dunedin. The members of the board present were Messrs "W. A. Sim (chairman), G. P. Parquhar, G. L. Sise, J A. Millar. M.H.U., and HdbeTt Ferguson. The Operatives' Society, was represented^ by Messrs E. C. Wilson (secretary), John Henderson, and Thomas Young. The following were present to represent the msster tailors :— Mtresrs Robert. Scott (W. and It. Scott), Weber (Brown, Ewing. and Co.), Crow (Hallenstein Bros ), Smith (Cr*ig and Smith), Alexander Kobb, James Crombie, W. lies, Thomas Jenkiua, L. Faigau, Jame« Hendry, J. M 'Donald, «ale (Herbert, Haynes, and Co.), J. Arthur, and Shepherd (Duthie Bros.). The following firms were not represented :— Messrs W. Aitken and Sob, T. V. Feltham. J. A. Kirby, I<\ Smit'li and Co., Stokes ana Sons, Todd and Brown, G. M. Wilkie, and Bennet and Griffen. The order of reference contained the following conditions of labour asked 'for :: — ■ " (1) That the number of apprentices bi limited to oue to four .pieceworkers or fraction of "the "first four ; all apprentices to 'be indentured .after a three months' trial, and to serve for Hve years. (2) That«ot mor* thaii.one-tlfty-'wage,man be allowed to each*hopi the -day-wage nianto.have charge of the apprentices, a-nS "haye .no -other permanent assistance.' (3) Mjenibers 6f the society to have %c pne-emptive -rUih't of ■employment. (4) The minimum wage for day-wagenren shall be JB2 los. ; t5) The 'horns ofjlabour shall *s from 8 am. to S ■p in , with one ihoux foT •dionwr, :an<i oif Saturday - from Ba.TO. to 12 a.m." "Ther* was a further clause : ■providing that.were females are employed they <niuit malre and press their own woils. Mr R. C. Wilson suggested tbat the masters stould appoint three of their number to represent them before the 'board.

Mr lies said the matter bad been considered by ■the master -tailors, and there -were no three -or «yen four of them prepared to undeitaike the work. ' The Chairman remarked that the reference filed , did Jiot indicate what the points of difference wpre.

'Mr Wilson smS that one point— that of overtime—"bad been conceded by tha masters. Me suggested that the masters should be asked if they were prepared to concede anj other /points. Mr lies pointed out that in the libt of names of ; ■mst'era brought into the fiißpute seyetul had been | *initted— namely, J;lie D 1. <.)., Lorie and Co., Il'.I I . Williams, Piankin, Jarvis, Johnston, Sinclair, and ' trthers.

Mt Wilson said there was no dispute with the D.I.C. He did not Jtnow it did tailoring. If tliey brought Xioiiie and Co. before ihe board they would have to bring the New Zealand^ Clothing Factojy. the former's establishment being a factory. The other persons named had piecework shops or did not employ anyone.

In leply totiie Chairman, MrHes said the masters admitted that t ey had conceded the clemana in regard to overtime, but were prepared to agree to none of the other demands.

Mr W.ilson s*id it w»b not his intention to inflict a long introductory address on the men's grievances, bait it was a duty incumbent on him to give a few facts in reference to "the cause of,the dispute. .Every mean? had been employed on their part to induce the employers concerned to try and settle their grievances^ in an amicable manner, but that their efforts in that direction had been abortive was 'proved by their presence 1 here that day. The Tailors' CTnion'bad been in operation In Du^edin since the year ISOS, and had obtained general recognition from the employers almost sinte its iaceptionj- In proof of this statement the log they were at the present time working -under was drafted at a conference of employers and employees in 1579, and a copy of that he would put forward in evidence, and again in 188"J a machine Jog was introduced by the union. He would also put a copy of the teims of this in as evidence. The system under which "they weie at the present time working l>eiug unsatUfactoiy ito *the men, 1l»e union convened a meeting of its members 'in May of this year, when it was unanimously decided to appoint a committee of inquiry into <tl>e whole matter and to report to a future meeting. The committee's opinions were expressed in a report which was laid before a summoned meeting on August 9, when the recommendations of the •committee, with .slight alterations, were finally adopted and were, in ipoint of facfc, the border of reference now "before the board. Their views were then seat to each individual 'employee, resulting in a conference representing both parties being held. The outcome of that was that the emp'oyers agreed to tte union oa only one pomt — that of overtime, — and with, the exception -of 'the .princiiile-askedfor concerning -the apprentices all the other points were flatty refused. The conference then *djonmed -with, .the understanding that another conjoint meeting would be h.eld shortly, but no date was fixed for this. He read a letter subsequently received from the enrploj'ers, and then went on to deal with the order of reference. The question of :apprentices Tad been partially decided between, ths union and ,tho employers. Xhe principle underlying the question liad been aflmitted by them, but'the point in dispute wa* only a matter of degree. The union, on the one hand, considered that<one apprentice to four men . (vould-be.a , fair proportion, the employers, on the ether hand, wanting one apprentice to three men. Under the existing system there -was no arrangement rfor the regulation apprentice?, and <tbere »was nothing .to prevent An unscrupulous employer from having -a crowd of apprentices .with a -practical -man ±0 conduct them. Unless there was somefhing of a fixed nature in this respect, the trade would drift, and was -simply drifting, into such a «tate -that the men were heing supplanted by "boy labour. (Besides, the apprentices .were mot .'receiving anything like a knowledge of -.the -trade. In many cases boys wece beiug kept. at> one. portion of the trade, and after spending, .say, five years at that, were thrown on their own resources with au incomplete notion of the trade they were supposed to have learned. Therefore by a. close regulation as to the number of apprentices to men, .an apprentice would be in an assured position so far

as the learning of tha trade was concerned. He did not think the point of the indenturing of all apprentices for a fixed term ot year 3 was a matter that required much .11 gument from liim. It was a well-known fact that the citieß in New Zealand were Jiter illy deluged with young men who had perhaps. spsut a year of two at a trade, and were then thrown on the labour market to swell the ranks of the unemployed in order to make room for young and cheaper labour. By such a means as he hid indicatel this would be prevented, and these young men would then be in a better position to fight life's battle. The question of day wage was one of the mo3t important and vital points, so far as the tailor.-? were concerned, in the whole reference. In fact, there had been a keen and active battle raging for years to deteimine this point, and from his own personal experience the workers had bei-n getting the worst of it all the time. The disibilitics and restrictions they were now woiking xiuder, if continued, would in a very short lime hunt every practical tailor out of the trad- 5 . If ths per.on.s whom "the employeis were replacing them with were tetting anything like wages, or if there was a corresponding reduction iv the pi-ice of a suit of clothes, then it might be advanced with a degree of truth that they had no reason to complain. 'But, 'he whs sorry to say, it was the other way about. To gire an idea of what he meant be -might instance the fact that in some shops in Dunedin where a number of day-wage men were employed one of them was known as the pacemaker— that was to say, this man was tt very speedy and expeit trade-man who drove along at his top spead, and the rest bad to liurry along Vfter him, helter-skelter, getting through the work regardless of efficiency so as to be close on the heels of the pacemaker at the finish, with line 'object of retaining their job, as they felt and knew that unless they could turn out the_ same number of garments as the fast man their employment was in jeopardy, thus, 111 many cases, sacrifw-iwe efficiency to speed and greed. He said advisedly that there were and employers. They had employers in the trade who were as f*ir-minded and as honourable men as they could find in any community, but he was so ry to say there were others who were unscrupulous, and tiied every means to advance themselves at the expense of the workers. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that there were HO employers engaged in the tailoring trade in TJuneain, nnd out of that 30 there were 20 fair and reasonable men who would be agreeable to pay a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, and who were also adverse to working long hours, but unfortunately the thirtieth employer was of a gre»dy, grasping nature, who saw his opportunity by introducing day-wage and boy labour and. lengthening the hours — which meant, in other words,, cheap labour —to undercut and 'Unfairly compete against the 29. TTenh e n .the 29 would try by moral suasion, which was the only -weapon t v ey have with which to .fight their unscrupulous brother trader, to try and raise him up to their level ; but if th?y found their efforts ineffectual the result was that this one individuall could drag, even though against their will, the 29 down to his own level. But it was fortunate for the woikers that such a tribunal as the Conciliation Board existed, when their dispute could be rectified without resorting tot] c old brntnl method of strikes. It would be noticed that they asked that day- wage men be limited to one in eveiy bhop. Ths day- wage man was originally introduced for the purpose of educating the apprentices, but as time went nn some of the employers found another us ' for him — viz., to cut down wages and to work the team fysiem, a system which had been the means _of degrading the workers in the trade. Under that system a master tailor engaged a practical tailor, who must, as a necessity, be an expert and speedy tradesman along with xhis man was the team compo»ed of an unlimited number of girls aud boys. The work was subdivided into sections, and was then handed over to lhe girls and boys, who were supervised by the pi actical tailor. This went to show thai tbe employer had to depend on the union tailors for his tenm driver. Strange to sa3% the system he had described teemed to b« peculiar to New Zealand, and to the best of his knowledge and belief it did not obtain in Great Uritain ; of coimc he did not include the London sweating dens. What they wanted was that operatives be paid log rates for the work they did, and that the number of wage hands, to pieceworkers be clearly stipulated. The trade was peculiarly adapted to be worked on the "piecework system. At one time in the history of the "trade here the piecework system was very prevaleut. but oue firm after another fell into the ruck of the team .system. One firm, which two or three years ago employed from 16 to 22 pieceworkers, now employ four day-wage men, four pieceworkers, and several women and youths. The day • wage men and the girls and j youths got the cream of the work, and any j crumbs which they could not swallow were j landed over to the poor pieceworkers who, to say 1 the least of it, were simply making starvation wage* out of the little they got to do. Another point under this heading was that they claimed that "the da3»-wage man mi'ic not have any permanent assistant or assistants, except the etrpulated apprentices. Iv regsurd to the matter of females being a'ked to wholly make and pre->s their .own job, it had been advanced that this request was inhumane, and that to ask a woman to press a garment was barbarous. But ■whsn the facts were fully disclosed they would go to show that it was only mock eympithy or want of practical lcuowledge on the part of the em(ployers or any other non-practical person that made ihein cay so. The fact of the .matter was that at the present; moment 50 par cent of the pressing done in tailors' shops was done by females, bnt the finishing touch on such work was done by the piaciical iailor for the purpose of giving 'the garment a finished appearance. Then, in some of the larger factories, theie were females employed>as-pres i >ers where -the garment had tobs finished. Then, in the manfcle-makiug And dressmaking trades, where nothing but females were employed, they did all iheir own pressing. He -wou'ldadniit that in this latter instance a lighter iron .might be used, but the fact remained that 'this ■was not the case in tailors' shops Then again, when trade is slack, only the females were xetauißsl, land generally a wages man with them, for the express purpose of seeing that the .garments were properly finished, and if it was not for this litter fact the wage 3 man would also be dispensed with, and the clnss of work done in the .tailoring trade would then degenerate into what was termed slop-made garments. The union had

no objection to woik nlong with females, but what they wanted wai that they should bp putou the sime level at the men. and not what was slowly being 'done — namely, that the men were being crushed out on the one hand, and their wages reduced on the other. With regard to the claim for preference of employment for members of the union, which was one of the fundamental principles of unionism, in the matter of the Operative Bootmaker&' Union, Mr Justice Williams had established the precedent that union men should have the first right of employment. lie would point out that the Tailors' TJuion was a very old established organisation, and the time statement which the tailors in Dunedin were at present working under went to prove that the union was a body recognised by the employers. He thought this fact ought to be sufficient to decide this point in their favour. Another poiat in support of this was that they maintaired that the union had been the means of keeping wages up to their present standard. Besides, the major portion of the operatives engaged in the trade were members of the union, and consequently very little if any harm would be done to the few individuals outside its ra iks. Those out may become members. The next point in the order of reference was the minimum wage. This matter was discussed at the conference on September 15. The employers held that 4 s s for a 43-hour week would be a fair thing ; and discussion then took place whi.-h lesulled in the uninn_representatives agreeing ti recommend to their union to accept 55s for a 48-hour week. This recommendatioa, however, did not meet with the approval of the unioD, and after careful consideration it was finally decided that 50s for a 44-hour wet-k be as-ked for. 'ibis, you will see, was a considerable reduction from what was.at first asked— viz., 60a for a 44-hour week. He«ub-' mltted that this was an equitable adjustment and should meet with the approval of the boar^, as it 'was aim st cm all-fou s with the agreement come to by the master tailors and the union in Wellington. There was at the present time no restiiction on employeis in regard to this matter, and the f^ct 'of their having a free hand in this direction resulted in lhe lowering of wage*. He might state that xthen -the day-wage system became prevalent the . recognised wages were fixed at £3 3s per week. At the present time it entiiely depended on the clas", or rather fctamp, of employer one was dealing wi'h. Rome employers, to their credit, b-t it saidVpaid the old recognised wages, while others, on the other hand, paid the magnificent sum of 3?,s or thereabout* per week of 50 hours at the least, and he submitted that it would be a just action towards the fair-minded section of the employers if the boaid regulated this matter by flxiug the minimum asked. The question of the "hours of labour was also discussed at the conference, and the employers were also uuaniruous in their opinion that the hours sJiould not exceed 48 per week. He did not anticipate that there would be any difficulty in coming to au amicable understanding on this point. At the same time, he submitted, notwithstanding the employers' offer, that the hours as stipulated by them on the order of reference Bhould be a?reed to Their reasons for saying that were that they found that the long hours had a very pernicious effect, inasmuch us they undoubtedly tended to keep a certain proportion of their members either out altoietber or only partially employed, and it was with the view of a moie equitable distribution of the labour that they asked for 44 hours per we-k. The next poinl vras that there v/as a rapidly increasing tendency in this direction in all trades, and another puint in favour of the hours th»;y asked for was that the trade was beyond question veiy unhealthy, even in the best ventilated workrooms. The position that a tailor had to work in was undoubtedly injurious to hid health, as he .was certain the p actical portion of the employers must admit, lie submitted, therefore, on the grounds of a more equitable distribution of the woik and of the saving of health to the workman concerned, that their tei ms should meet with the board's approval. The next point on the order of reference was the qusstion of overtime, in regard to which he was pleased to say that the employers agreed to their terms.

The Chairman said it would be convenient if the board could he*r the masters' statement of the case.

Mr A. Crow said he represented Messr/j Hallenstein Bro?.' Octagon retail branch. In convection with a general outfitting business ths firm did a considerable tailoring trade. He desire 1 to state that the firm di.i not agree to all the resolutions xussed at the meeting of some of the master tailors. He took special exception to a lesolution stating "that the system under which tailors and tailoresses have been e-uployed has worked satisfactorily in Ihe past, therefore employers do not feel justified in upsetting existing arrangements." He affirmed that the so-called tailoring trade had for some time been in a very unsatisfactory state. Almost all firms turned outp'incipally machine-made goods. The prices at which they advertiFtd to supply tailor made garments coi roborated that, as tailor-made goods could not possibly be made at the prices quoted by them. His firm viewed the present investigation with favour, and hoped the outcome of it would reestablish the tailoring trade on a proper footing. While sympathising with the journeymen tailors, th"y thought they were wrong in making it a condition that where females weie emp'oyed they must make and press their own work. While women in some respects were quite as good as tailors, most of them were physically incapable of doing the pressing. J,lta firm also thought that it would be arbitrary and wroog to restrict employers to have only one weekly-wage man. Why should they not have the right to employ as many weekly-wage men as they chose. While saying this he knew that as a rule his firm preferred pieceworkers. His firm conceded to the Tailois' Union everything they asked except the question of day-wage men and the questiou in reference to pressing by females. Mr Weber, representing Brown, Jfiwing, and Co , stated that the demands that his firm took exception to were those with regard io apprentices and females pressing their own work, for a long time the firm had employed pieceworkers mostly, and bad no objection to that so far as he knew. With regard to members of the union having a pre-emptive right to employment, the firm thought that they should have an equal right with others, but that was all. The firm did not like the idea of indenturing apprentices for five yeara. They thought a bound apprentice would givs far less attention to his work thaa a tree one would, and

that indenturing would not ensure nn apprentice j learning his business any bettor. With legard to \ a minimum wsge of 50d a week, the firm were quite agreeable to that, and to payment for overtime The Chairman : What about the log? j Mr Weber : We don't object in any sense to the , log. I The Chairman : Do your firm, Mr Crow, object ' to the log ? Mr Crow.: No. , Mr Crombie thought that 44 hours' work a week was not enough. The majority of tailors at pwBeut worked over 48 hours. His men worked 50 hours. Seeing that the men had to do ths pressing for the girls, be thought they should work j half an hour later than the girls. With regard to the indenturing of apprentices he wasnotin favour i of it all. xf indenturing was compulsoiy he did not think that he. would have any apprentices at < all. As regards the propos.il that there should be one apprentice to every four men he thought tbat was unreasonable. One to the first three men or every fraction of the first three would be more reasonable. With regard to d,iy wage men, if that point was conceded it would upset the present arrangement in the tailoring trade altogether. Jt would al'O affect ths teaching of apprentice?. As to the log, the ccst of making a suit by the log would amount to almost. 50 per cent, moie than foimerls'. He would guarantee to make 03. an hour on some items. Then, if only one weeklywage man was allowed, and he was not allowed to do the pressing for lhe tailore^ses he would . have to dismiss the best of his tailoresses. Some of his.tailoresses had informed "him that if Ihey had to press their own woik they would have to give up wotk altogether. The customers would also be affected, as he would then have to employ tailors, and according to the log before the committee it would take 12-i to 14s more to make a suit.

SUlb. The Ohairnian : Have vo i co<umiti 1 a los: which you suggest should be adopted ,? Mr Crombie replied that he had not. He was quite? willing to give a good man a good wage. He was sure uo good- man would 4i»ve any difficulty in getting a good wage. All the masters employed tailoresses. They did not employ them to make money out of the business, but they were compelled to employ th> itr "to "brinsr their garments within i;hc reach of their customers. If they could get £6 for a suit as they used to 3 ear 3 ago they might all employ tailors. Mr Tiobb said he would_ not at all entertain the proposal forthe indenturing of apprentices. He had had four indentured apprentices, and he had had to go to hw with two of them to get cleir of them — they were actually wasting time, and told him they did plenty for all the 'wages they got. He quite agreed that th^re should be one apprentice to three men if they conl 1 take on another apprentice after two and .i-half years, when the first apprentice's time was half rtonp. It would be absolutely impossible to manage with one day--wage man in shops where different branches of the business were carried on. He. would prefer a free hand to give employment to the bsst man, whether a unionist or not. He hsd. no objection to a minimum wage of £2 10s for a week ot 48 hours, for a good man would get more than that. He would not ask any tailore^s-s to press their own work, for they could not possibly do it properly as it ought to be done. He thought the ladies' log wa-t out of Ihe question. In consequence of the changes of fashion in that particular department, no ladies' log ever had worked • c

satisfactorily. Mr lies expressed himself as agreeable to having one apprentice to three journeymen, or part of three, and lohavinsra new one every 2J- years. He would not entertain the proposal for the ■indenturing of apprentice?. If he had to indenture an apprentice he would not have one, "With regard to the proposed restriction of the number of daywage men, he thought it very unreasonable to expect a change from day's wages to piecework— especially the piecework under the proposed log. That would mean an increase of £1 in the price of a suit, anil would really "be playing into the hands of the factories, for the middle-class tradesmen would have to put up thi»ir shutters. -He thought there sbouH bn at least three day-wage men to each shop. There were a number of young men who were Dot capable of working at piecework under the lo?, and under the proposed log all these improveis would be tlriveu out of the trade altogether. He objected to members of the union having a preference in employment, if that meant displacing tailore3ses. Mr Wilson said the meaning was that the members of any union should h;ive the preference. Mr lies said the log was based on Is an hour, and the tailors proposed to work 44 hours a week; and he thought the minimum wage should be Is an hour for the 44 hours, but that was an unimportant point, because he would not employ a day-wage man who was n»t worth more than £2 lQit a week. With regard to the demand that " where females are employed they must make and press their own work," there was no doubt that females had crept ioto the tailoring trade, but it would bo a hardship to force them out now, and this clause was inserted in the demand to squeeze them out, for they simnly could not do the work. He objected to the log bolus-bolns — it was 15 to 20 years behind the f *

ime MrG»l? congratulated Mr Wilson on the way he had put forward his side of the case, but said there was no comparison between the condition of the trade in 1565 and now, and if some of the conditions of the proposed log'were carried out it would simt>ly mean the closing up of pome of the shops. He did not think it desirable that apprentices should be bound by indentures. He would agree to one apprentice every two and a-half years, and he thought that one apprentice for three journeymen was about a fair proportion. He considered the tailors should be allowed three day-wage men. He did not thiuk the condition that members of the union should have the preference in employment mattered much He would not think of asking a man, who applied to him for employment, if he was a member of the union or not. He was satisfied that the hours of labour should be 4S psr week, and i« that case the iniuimum wage should be 48s. Overtime was a good thiDg, and it was a pity it had sot been introduced loDg ago. He could «ppak feelingly on the point, for when he first cams to Dunediu he had had to walk about the streets, whilst other men were working overtime. The same thing was being done now, and there were' tailora' shops which should not be called Ehops at all, but "lighthouses of Dunedin "— (lauehteri.— for they were lit ud half

the night, with tbe hands working insid- v ! With regiwd to the ' demand that femalei should press their own work, he claimed, if be employed a day- wage man. that hehad a.ripht toask that man to do what he liked, and if he aeked him 1 to press a job a girl had made it was the man's duty ,todo it f.»r him. The object of this demand was to pu3h the women out. Women had worked fer I him for 12 years, and he did not see why tbey • should be pushed out into the streets to nuke room for men. Re-pecting the proposed Irq, UQU Q said the compilers of it must know that there was no comparison between the conditions at the time the old log was frame 1 and I hose that prevailed now, and' it was not fair to put the log in at a higher rate than in 1879; yet ifc was a little higher all Ihrough, while some of the conditions as to machinery were simply nonsense. The Chairman suggested that the masters shonM go over the log, pick out <ho items' they objected to, and decide what prices they were p>epared to c ffer. Mr John M'Donald raid lie did not understand the log, and never worked under it. He paid weekly wage*, and he did not think any who worked for him had much cause to complain with regard ti lhe wage* they were getting. He thousht a good tailor deserved £3 a week In Dtinediu there were three classes of tailois— low class, medium, and high class tailoiv. All three classes employed girls, men, and boys mixed up together ; and if the point were ronceded wi.th regard to tailor iSRes pressing their own work, it would mean that the medium class tailors would have to throw their girls out of employment, and their rustomeis would immediately patroniie . the' tailors who pro'essed to have -better class hands' arid to do better class work. With., regard 'to 5 apprentices he would like to tee something done' a>>out them. He 'thought, thci? Here w«»re about 30 or 40 young men in Ounedjn who had only halfr l"<*rnt their trade, ami were not fittogorntd tf shop and do v a job If something was not done ia the wny of indenturing apprentices he' presumed that it .-was only a matter of time when 'there would be no tailons^es at all. The Chairman' : You don't obj cb to the condition with regard to apprentices ? Mr M'Donald : No ; luit I think we should have one apprentice to three weekly-w^ge men, with the right to add apprentices to our factory every two or three years at (he outside. He proceeded tojs>y that he thought one thould be able to judge fairly with regard to an apprentl-e after a t'ial of three months. With regard to the question of unionism he would like to employ whom he liked, but he had no objection to a man belonging to a union. Neither did he at all o v -j«cfc to pay a minimum wage. He thought 48 hours a, week was a fair time for a man to work. As to the log he considered it-wanted revision. Mr Smith, of Ora'g and Smith, was in favour of three weekly-wage men being employed With regard to apprentices he agreed that theie should be one to three men. (le was ralhur in favour of indenturing apprentices, as it wai better for the lads when they grew up. He did flot object to giving union men a pivfermce of work. With regard to a minimum wage, he thought that £2 10s was a fair thing. He was also of opinion that 48 hours was a fair time to work. He quite approved of paying for overtime. He objected ta females pressing their own work, and al*o to the log, many of the items in which were not reasonable. Mr Hendry thought there should be oue apprentice to three men, and that the mastera should be allowed to employ another apprentice erery tw» and a-half years. It wasnot unfair for employers to employ, three daj'-wage men. He did not object to frive union men a preference in regard to work. He reckoned th>t 48 hours was'a f*ir time to work, and h° agreed topiy overtime. He; however, could not carry on business if females had to preps their own work. He thought the log would be more Eiiitable if passed on the basis of 9d an hour. Mr Scott agreed very much with what Mr RoKb had said on the subject of apprentices. Hl3 experience was that apprentices were more bother than they w. re worth. He thoughe the proper* tion should be one apprenticeto three men, with, a new apprentice every two and a-half years. The employers could not woik with one day- wage man— they required three such men. While agreeing with unionism, ho thought tbat no body of men had a right to claim preference in employment. He was in favour of a minimum wage of 50s and of a 48-hour week. He bslieved it to bo the height of cruelty to ask a woman to handle a 161b or 201b iron for an hour without intermission. He did not think any right-thinking man could entertain that for a moment, and he most; emphatically protested therefore against the demand that women should do their own pressing—it was an attempt to put women out of the trade. He believed the log was about one-third too high. It would probably be the right thing to reduce the basis to one of 9d -per hour. Mr Arthur agreed with the masters' decision that the proportion of apprentices to journeyman should be one to three, but he believed that apprentices were unprofitable, and his firm had already decided not to employ any more. He objected strongly to indenturing. He was in favour of having three day - wage men in a^ shop. He had always "been in favour of unionism, and he_ was giving preference in employment to unionists if they were good men.— (Laughter.) He thought that 48s should be the minimum rate of wages if the men intended to work 48 hours a week. He regarded it as most ridiculous and inhuman to expect females to ptess off their own jobs, and it was very cunning to put lhe clause requiring that io the demands of the journeymen tailors. He objected to the log. It was not possible for an average tailoring business in town to pay the prices in -the log, and said there were men there who bad made £1 a day under the old log. >

Mr Shepherd said he agreed pretty Well with the previous speakers, as to apprentices and daywage men, and claimed a free hand as to the employment of his men. He was in favour of £2 10i as the minimum wage with 48 hours in the week. Female* should not be asked to press their own work. He objected generally to the log. Mr Jenkins thought there should be one apprentice to three men, with a new one every two and a-half years. He considered that apprentice's should not be indentured, and that three day-wage men should be allowed in a shop. He objected to give preferenre in employment to unionists. He was agreeable to a minimum wage of £2 10s a week for 48 hours, but he objected to females being asked to press their own woik, and he also objected to the statement.

Mr Weber amended his statement of his firm's views by expressing a preference for three daywage me*.

Evidence was then called in support of the operativt'B* demands. Robert Wright, examined by Mr Young, deposed that he bad been over 34 years in Divnedin, aud over 45 years at the tailoi ing trade. He had been, except for nine months, engaged on piecework. He thought piecework was the most equitable sybteni. He bad almost made arrangements to leave the trade on account of the team system. There was not a living wswje in it now. Females were as capable as plenty of men were of pressing their own work. They could tise 71b or Sib irons, as he had dona himself. Pressing was not very hard woik, but it was disagreeable work. Females might take a little longer time over it than men would, but they would do the work quite as well. "Under the team system apprentice* had not a fair opportunity of learning their trade.

Mr Young : Do you think 44 hours a sufficient number of hours to work a week ? Witness- The fewer the better. — (Laughter.) He was working 50 hours a week at pivsent. By Mr prombie : Witness and Mr Young both ■worked in Fred. Smith and Co.'s.

' By Mr Gale: Witness had made coats for the late Itaac Martin and for Milligan in Dunedin, ■ttni regularly at Home. Mr Gale asked a few more questions, bis object being, he said, to show that the witness, who was a recognised waistcoat-maker, was not competent to -say whether a female was able to prrss off-a coat.— (Hisses from the body of the courfr.) To the Chairman : Witness had been paid tinder tli6 1879 log He did not know the details of the log proposed by the union.

To Mr Millar : Witnefs thought the team syoiem was largely responsible for the number of improvers who were knocking about. ' Walter Muir, employed by J. Hendry and Son, said he was working at trousers and vests with the assistance of a boy. They could turn out 10 trousers and vests a week, making: repairs as well. He pressed for tin cc girls also. He hid received JE2 53 a week for the last three or four week 3. Prior to that he bad received £2 a week. He supposed bis assibtant received 10s or 12s a week. He hail never worked piecework. He did not 'think females could do the heaviest part of the pressing. If girls were taught to press he thought they might be able to press their own job, but it would be hard work for them— it was hard work for him. ]f gitls "were to do their own pressing what was to become of him ?— (Laughter.) He would have to do stone work.

.Mr Youns : If we were all like you we Would be wallowing in the dirt. To Mr WiUon : If he had ever said he was in favour of women doing their own pressing he did not believe it.— (Laughter.) He was at the meeting of the union when this matter was brought up, and he voted then for women doing their own pressing, but he was not agreeable to it. — (Laughter.) "JL"he majority were against him, so what w«s the use of his voting against it. To the Chairman : Six journeymen, two apprentices, and Eeven tailore-ses were employed at Hendry'ss. Kour of the men were working on pif-cework. They were working 50 hours a week. To Mr Young : He had seen the pieceworkers walking about in the place while the weeklywage men, were workiog full time. He had always been used to J the- team system. He would not be in favour of that system, but he would, be in favour of having three day- wage men in a shop. He did not know if he would be in favour o' that if he were a pieceworker. . . Ylr Jfoung : Surely you sympathise with the pieceworkers ? Witness : There is no sympathy in our trade — (laughter), — and you will find that out too 'avid M'Laren aaid he had been working on piecework for some time. He was not in favour of the team system. From the 13th of May up to the 2(>th <.f September he did not average 2s 6d a week. During the 12 months from October 1 last year up to the Jst of October this year he did not think he had averaged £1 a week. This was all through the adoption of the day- wage system and the employment of girl*. The team system he disagreed with altogether. The system did not give fairplay to any working man. He thought apprentices should be bound. He had seen women pressing their own work in Scotland and in Manchester. There was nothiDg to prevent women pressing their own work. He was told by one girl that she would rather do her own pressing and get the- money for it. When a man pressed a pair of trousers he was paid just the same for it as a woman would be if she did it.

In reply to Mr Crombie, Witness said be had been in Brown, EwiDg, and Co.'s for two years. Then he was employed a little time at Scott's, he afterwards went to MrOrombie's. He did not get the sack from Mr Crombie, but was kept hanging cm. The last time he went to Mr Crombie he received nothing more from him than a woman would get. Witness ■was working on piecework, and Mr Crombie only reckoned the job at woman's prices. The biggest wage be had there was £1 17s 6d or £1 17s 9d a week. For the same jobs he got -€2 15s and £2 16s in Brown, Ewing, and Co.'s. To the Chairman : Witness was working on day •wages for a little time for Mr Crombie, and made 35^ a waek.

John D. Fletcher said he was working at present at J. and J. Arthur's on weekly wages. He was bead of the team. There were about 25 or 27 hands, employed there, but another man had 12 under him. He generally superintended the ■work and put on collars, or did anything particular that required to be done to the goods. He did very little pressing himself, but he knew two girls in the New Zealand Clothing Factsry who did the pressing the whole day. They were engaged pressing coat», trousers, and vests— principally boys' clothing. To the Chairman ; As a rule the pieceworkers Sid not «efc the iam« amount of work as the

weekly hands. They got very small wages. He believed in abolishing the piecework system, unless it was all made piecework. To Mr Wvow : The place where the two girls did the pressing was in the New Zealand Clothing l'Vctory in Bowling street. To Mr ltobb : The woik witness saw the girls pressing they pressed very well. The work done by them was what he called factory work. He ihought the ordered work was given to the men to piesi, but was not quite sure. To Mr Gale : Witness did not think that the pressing he had seen done by the girls in the factory would pass in an ordiuary tailors' shop. To the Chairman : Witness had been about 13 months with J. and J. Arthur He was getting £3 a week and all holidays paid for. To Mr Ft-rguson .* Witness would reckon tbat the team system bad something to do with a number of tailors being out of work. Mr Arthur raid he understood that the team system meant five 'or six slow men with a fast man at their head.— (Cries of "No, no.") He

Mr Arthur raid he understood that the team system meant five 'or six slow men with a fast man at their head.— (Cries of "No, no.") He a-ked witness if the team system was in operation in the shop he worked in. Was there anything of a pacemaker? Witness : No ; there is no pacemaker. At this- stage of the proceedings the Chairman suggested that after the court adjourned the masters should meet and discuss amongst themselves the subject of tbe log in oider that they might be- able to submit some definite proposals to the court.

Mr Crombie remarked that the fixing of a log meant a thre« months' job. At 6 o'clock the court adjourned until 11 a.m. this morning.