FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2647, 1 November 1909, Page 5

FURNITURE TRADE DISPUTE

COMPANY FINED FOR BREACHES OF AWARD. [Per Press Association-! WELLINGTON. October 30. Dr. McArthur S.M., to-day gave his reserved judgment in the case of the Uington Furniture Union v Hoyland and Co., a claim to recover a £lO penalty Tor an alleged breach of the Wellington furniture trade award. The allegation was that defendants employed Hi one Llewellyn Deslandes as an apprentice without having him properly indentured. Plaintiffs also claimed a £lO penalty for a second alleged breach, viz., employing one Harry Anselow at . cabinet work and paying him only £2 per week of 46 hours instead of Is 3|<l per hour as provided. It was contended on defendant’s behalf that their work was neither furniture-making nor cab-inet-making. “In my opinion,” remarked Dr. McArthur, S.M., “I cannot - declare this a distinct trade. The question I have to decide appears to me to be which trade does it belong?” Continuing, the Magistrate said: ‘‘The carpenter frames and puts together the structural parts of a building, such as the walls, the roof, the floor, and the || partitions. The former finishes the building by supplying stairs, ordinary mantelpieces, and cupboards, while the cabinet maker provides the furniture and high-class work, such as elaborate mantelpieces, airtight show cases for shops, first-class bank and shop fittings. The bulk, if not all of defendant’s work appeared to be of the last kind. ;; “In my opinion airtight show cases and high-class fittings are shop furni- jt ture, and as such are the proper work of a cabinetmaker or furniture maker. || Milch staircase making is high-class joinery. Defendant seems to have thought that he was not the subject Hf to either the furniture makers’ or joiners’ award, and acted accordingly, j both in neglecting to' indenture the apprentice and in.employing an underrate worker without a permit. As he tjh? may have acted in a bona fide belief as ; to his position I shall not impose the v j full penalty asked for, but as fie must I have profited greatly by his action I H cannot inflict a mere nominal penalty. ,y Tlic penalty accordingly for each breach