The Shipping Dispute.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19177, 7 December 1927, Page 10

The Shipping Dispute.

The only new development in the shipping dispute during the last twentyfour hours seems to have been an attempt by the men to get the shipowners into a false position.. The exact meaning of the proceedings before and after the approach to the Court (recorded in our cables to-day) is not quite clear, but one of the objects obviously was to get the owners into a position in which they would be saddled with, and seem to have accepted, the same degree of responsibility as the men. It must be assumed, also, from the statement issued yesterday by the Joint Committee of the Oversea and Commonwealth Shipowners' Association that the owners, now that war has actually been declared, would sooner fight to a finish than patch up a foolish peace. The owners make no secret of the fact that they have tied up their ships, not merely because of the over-time dispute, but because of the "lawlessness "of the Union during the past three "years." So far as the men are concerned the dispute is another attempt to dictate their own terms in defiance of existing awards; on the part of the owners it is an attempt to end an intolerable situation for good and all, and with a full knowledge of what the cost may be both to themselves and to the community at large. The cables have not summarised the arguments of either side very fully or accurately, but they have been especially inadequate on the owners' side, and it is only since the Australian papers have come to hand with the full text of the ultimatum of November 25th that the extent of their grievances has been made known. The statement from the owners in today's cables complains especially of intolerable acts of lawlessness during the last three years. Their ultimatum of November 25th reminded the Watersiders' Federation that " as long ago as " 1914 the Federation gave an under- " taking to the Commonwealth Court "of Conciliation and Arbitration that " it would amend its rules with a view "to power being given to the Commit"tee of Management to discipline its "members in order to ensure that "awards would be obeyed"; that the President of the Court had to complain in 1917 that the undertaking had not {wen observed; although the rales

were then (in 19X7) amended as required by the Court, " breaches of the "award have continued without inter- " mission," in spite of the fact that the Federation's attention has been "consistently directed to them, and re- " peated requests made that the powers "vested in the Committee of Manage- " ment should be exercised." The ultimatum is in fact a recital, half a column long, of the Federation's open, deliberate, and insolent refusals through thirteen years to keep either its word or its bond, till "the position has be- " come intolerable, and the industry "can no longer be carried on under " such impossible conditions."

The owners have assumed a heavy responsibility in tying up their ships, especially at such a season, but it almost seems that " the alternative, as the Argus believes, is to permit '* a "few unknown men, with the minds "and hearts of outlaws,''' to inflict a grievous wrong upon the Commonwealth whenever they like, and to be convinced that no force can resist them. It is also interesting, and worth New Zealand's deep consideration, that the Argus should also have been forced to this conclusion, and to these very blunt remarks:

The futility of arbitration law and its onesidedness have lohg been evident. The commanders of the unionist rank and file treat the law with Bneering insolence. All the elaborate judicial machinery has the beauty and also the strength of a spider's web. Before arbitration laws were passed "peace, order, and good government" were known to civilised people. Government rested on certain principles which have not been repealed by the arbitration law, and, above all, it rested on a healthy public opinion that has never tolerated tyranny. In the struggle which is now upon us the owners may be forced to avail themselves of inherent rights ex. isting long before the jargon of arbitration laws purported to effect some' thing that they have failed to effect.