THE COFFIN QUESTION.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 16675, 24 February 1920, Page 2

THE COFFIN QUESTION.

DISCUSSED BY ARBITRATION COURT.

BV IUpEOBAPH.-.—OWM COEEESPONDENT. WELLINGTON, Feb. 23.

The question arose in the Arbitration Court to-day as to whether a coffin is a cabinet and coffin-making is cabinetmaking and incidentally whether undertakers who specialised, in coffins should bo included as parties to the furniture workers’ award.

E-. H. Wilson, undertaker, applied to the Court for exemption from tho award. He submitted he was not engaged in the furniture trade, and tho one cabinet-maker he employed did not want to he classed as a furniture J worker.

I). I? . Kennedy, for the union, urged that coffins were cabinet work essentially, though the standard type of coffin might bo turned out by a carpenter or builder. Mr. Justice Stringer agreed that, while some coffins might be made by highly skilled workers, others might be run up by rough carpenters. Mr. Kennedy said it was highly skilled work, and ho himself, before the era of the Arbitration Court, had received a substantial bonus for that class of work. , Mr. Grenfell (for the employers); “I suggest that the Court define what a cabinetmaker is.” His Honour demurred and Mr. Kennedy added that during th© epidemic many cabinetmakers had been employed making coffins at substantial rates of pav. Air. M'Cullongh.’ “As carpenters are getting 2s 6d an hour perhaps Mr. Wilson might prefer to be under their award.” His Honour: “You had better get rid of your cabinetmaker and make coffins yourself. While you employ a cabinetmaker I cannot see why you should ho exempt from the award.” Mr. Wilson earnestly submitted that a coffin could he hardly classed as furniture ; furniture yon put in your house, a coffin in the ground. His Honour would not accept the argument and said that so long as applicant employed a cabinetmaker he must be a party to tho award and could not be struck out from the list of parties.