THE RIGHT TO WORK.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1189, 26 July 1911, Page 8

THE RIGHT TO WORK.

CASE OF. S,S. STORMBIRD. THE LUMPERS AND THE CEEW. Kight (0 work was discussed in the Magistrate's Court, before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., yesterday morning. 1!. A. Bolliiiid. Inspector of Awards, claimed to recover from the Wellington Sleam Packet Company £W as a penalty for a breach of tho Wellington Wharf Labourers' Award. Tho following were set out as the particulars of the alleged breach:— The Packet Company, during the month of June, employed, at, "repair work," on their steamship Stormbird, nino men who were not members of the Wharf Labourers' Union, when certain members of the union were equally qualified to do the particular work, and ready and willing to iiudertako the same. This wa.s contrary to Section 16 of the Wharf Labourers' Award. Mr. Bolland appeared in support of the claim, and 31 r. A. L. Hordman represented the defendant company. Mr.-Bolland stated that, on June 10. the crew of the Stormbird had beon paid off, and were right away re-engaged at an hourly wage to work on the vessel cleaning and painting. Even the .cook and the steward had been employed. Tho Wharf Labourers' Union claimed that, tho work was wharf labourers' work under (lie award. There would not havo beon a breach of the award if these iug.i had not been paid off. There had been wharf labourers ready and willing to do the work, and preference should havo been shown them.

Mr. Bollaud called a number of witnesses, who gave evidence to the effect that there were men ready and willing to do the work on the Slormbird.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ilerdman, nearly all the witnesses admitted that they could say nothing as to the qualifications of the men employed on tho Stormbird.

Mr. Herdman said that die caso was one of H>me importance, as it affected tho position of tlio seamen employed on all the small boats trading about Wellington. H.was a contest between (ho wharf labourers a.'.ul the crews on those vessels. It was a question whether tho wharf labourers had the right to work or whether the crews had; Mr. Holland had not proved liis case. It was necessary for Mr. Bolland lo prove: (1) That there were members of the union available; find (2) that tlie members of tho union were equally qualified with noiimembers. Mr. Holland had not proved tliat there wore men available who were equally qualified with the Stormbird men. Ho (Mr. Ilorriman) conceded tint there were men available. The witnesses bad not bnen able to swear anything as to the qualifications of men on the vessel. The foundation -of Mr. Bolland's case was that (he men were not members of tho Wharf Labourers' Union. The first defence was that the men employed were seamen. They were members of tho Seamen's Union, and were entitled to all the benefits the Seamen's Union Award conferred; they were entitled by virtue of tho fact that they were seamen to perform this class of work on tho ship. Although the Wharf Labourers' Award provided for ship's repair work, it was not prescribed that such work was exclusively wharf labourers' work. There was nothing in any award which would prevent a seaman being employed on this class of work.

Mr. BolJaud: "It is 'admitted that this is seamen's work, and that there is an agreement that this kind of work can be interchangeable."

His Worship: "The effect of this is that they would have to join,the Wharf Labourers' Union in order to do this work."

Sir. Herdman contended that it made no difference whether the men were with articles or without articles. The ship had to go under inspection once a year, and it was the custom on Mi is and other vessels to effect repairs, dc, during that time. Tho companies desiring to keep their men, and the men (lesirins to not lose employment, it was desirable that the crew 'should do that work. To effect the repairs to the Stormbird, it had been necessary to dismantle tho forecastle. Tho .steamer had come, into port on June S. The crow worked under articles on.luneS and 0, and when, on June 10, tho forecastle became uninhabitable the crew signed off, and were immediately re-engaged at 10s. a day. They were thus given a lusher wage in order that they could pay their board and lodgings.

His Worship: "You say that had it not beon necessary to remove the accommodation the crow would have been kept on board the ship in the ordinary way."

Sir. Herdman: "1 say, also, that custom justifies the action which we took."

After Mr. Bolland had further advocated the case against the company, his Worship said that he thought this kind of thing was running to extremes. He thought that the action of the employers in providing for the men as they did was most commendable. Ho could not see that any wrong had been done. Mr. Bolland disputed Mr. Herdmau's point respecting custom, whereupon his Worship remarked: "But you would have been down on the company like a ton of bricks if they had let these men sleep dowji the hold when the forecastle was not habitable." The information was dismissed. No costs were allowed.