ARBITRATION COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 94, 18 April 1903, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

Fkiday, April 17th. - Before His Honor Judge Oooper and Messrs S, Biown and R. Sister.

The New Zealand Federated lidtHtrial Union of B.otwakt-rs v. The Egrao'it Boot Factory. This was au application to have ths Bgmont Boot and Shoe Factory brought under the award made regulating the trade in other industrial dis riots of tho colony. Mr Aggers, of Auckland, appeared in support of the fipplication and Mr H»1 Goad acre, proprietor of the Egmont Boot Factory, opposed the application. Mr Aggers, in opaning his case, which ha did at some length, claimed that it Wits unfair that the factory proprietor should be oufcsido the award regulating the trade while tho operative.", if members of the Union, were liable to a fine of for any breach of the award acd th it as the articles produced in the f ictory entered into competition with the products of fuc tories in o;he;' industrial distric's tho factory should coma under the same conditions. He called

Hal Goodacre, who said he was proprietor of the E ;m->nt Boat Factory. He employed travellers to eell his goods throughout the colony, and adraittad that goods manufactured in the Egmont Factory entered into competition with those produced else*here, Reet ived tho letter produced, and replied that as far as ho knew he was working under union rules. To the Oourt: His objection to come under the award was the compulsion to employ unionists. Soma of his employees had religious convictions against joining a Union. The hours of work also were not the same as here. | His hands started work at a quarter to i eight and worked till 5.15 with an hour for dinner,

Mr Aggers said he would agree to this.

Mr Goodacre continued: He also objatited to rule 10 giving 3d extra an hour for overtime, and any lost time having to be made up in the week it was lest. It often happoned that one of his hands wanted Thursday afternoon off, and as thair week ended on Friday night it. was impossible for the loHt time to be made up that week and he lost it altogether, The difficulty also cropped up at Christmas time.

Mr Aggers hdd that in any case an employer could claim 48 hours per week, and if he did not get it; bad the remedy iu his own bands. Mr Goodacre said that was not true, as the men could pack up at a week's notice and go, and reminded him of tho unfairness of forcing hiai to only employ Union labour, as t'nera was no ; surplus labour in New Plymouth as in the large rowes, and he could not get men at abort notice.

Mr Brown said it wa9 tho Employees Union that had wished to insist od all employees joining the Union. His Honor Judge Ooapcr ssid if competition wos shown, it was clear it was intended the employer, although in auother Industrial district, should come under the !iw,ird.

Mr Aggers called William Saddler, an operative at the Egmont Boot Factory and Secretary of the local Uniop, who stated that Mr Goodacre and the operatives at the factory worked amicably together. He could not say that if a small committee were set up it could s&tle all local differences; the committee might be able to settle some matters, but perhaps not others. Mr Goodacre pointed out that the Act provided thet any two employers could act on a committee, but us Taranaki wag a separate district and his the only factory, there wrs only one ernpl yur. After some further discussion his Honor said Mr Goodacre and his manager could form the employors portion of the committee. In reply to Mr Goodacre, witness Saddler said he had been nine years in the factory. Had always been treated fairly, and ris secretary of the local Union had lud no trouble with the operatives. Nothing had happoned iu the past that a committee could not have settled.

Mr Aggers said he did not intend to call any other witnesses. Mr Goodacre called,

F. Dryland, employed at the Egmont Boot Factory, who gave evidence that a local Committee could sattle differences between the proprietor and operatives of the factory. Cross-examined by Mr Aggers: It was the custom of the factory, when there was nothing particular for a man to do, for him to be sent home, but, if possible, he was kept working at stock. Re-examined by Mr Goodacre: He never knew a factory whew work was so constant as at the Egmont Factory. John Ohristoffer, boot fioishar, employed at the Egmont Factory, thought machinery beneficial to the boot industry. He thought it would be a good thing for the trade to introduce Ameri can methods as far as possible. Mr Goodacre addressed the Court-, cont?nding that the local, trade could get on better outside the Union. H>and his employees had always been able to sattle what little diflorences they had without the intervention of tbe Court. He thought the Union wages quite low enough, as a matter of f«ct he paid higher wages all round. In bis exp-rience men could earn better wages without machinery than with it. Mr Aggers also briefly addressed tho Court, contending that Mr Goodacre had not established any reason why his factory should not be brought under th 9 award.

The Court notified that a decision would be given on Saturd ly.

The printing trade cases were th-n dealt with, a report of which is hold over.

The awards will bo given at 10 o'clock to-day.