MARINE ENGINEERS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1685, 27 February 1913, Page 6

MARINE ENGINEERS.

AT GRIPS WITH THE UNION CO,

SOME PAST HISTORY.

ENGINE-ROOM.GRIEVANCES,

I No definitp step has been taken in the dispute between tho Union Steam Ship .Company l 'and 'tho Marino Engineers in its employ, since the company filed an application on Friday last to have tho dispute referred to of Conciliation. In fact the Marine Engineers' lustituto has not yet been formally notified of the step taken by tho Union Company. Yesterday, Air. A. Wallace (secretary ofthe Marine Engineers' Institute) made tho following statement regarding the past relations- of tho Union Company and its engineers:—. . "In 1908 an agreement between tho Union Company and the institute was arrived' at regarding wages and conditions. The wages asked for at that time were not obtained, a small increase only being granted. The agreement was a compromise. One of the reasons advanced by the management of'the company for not acceding to the institute's claims was that they iniglit compromise the. 1 members of tho .Commonwealth Steam Ship-owners Associations of which thev-are' members. Previous to this agreement, when engineers had to'leave their ships through illness, etc., the chief and second engineers were allowed pay and board money for ono month-, but although seamen and firemen got paid when they- came ashoro under similar icircumstanccs, junior engineers got no consideration. To do away with; this the institute .agreed that .all engineers should come, nnder. tho. provisions of the Shipping Act. ' "This has been taken advantage of in a 'manner never anticipated by the institute. :Tho, company ■■ say they higlwy anpreoiate their engineers. Well, they should do, for the management must know-how much i they are indebted to their engineers for keeping things going.But if tli9. company do appreciate the engineers they'have a very poor , way of •showing.at. It is a matter beyond dispute that the . company has not kept faith with its engineers in more instances ; than one.- Let two suffice: There is a breach of faith, over the , Australian award. - Two years ago the company'gavo a Avritten proniise that the engineers' accommodation in. several boats' would- ba .improved, but up to the-present nothing has been done.- Tho accommodation remains tho same. How different the treatment served out to tho firemen! In several vessels passenger accommodation has been taken out and fitted up for them. This is not to say that better accommodation for the firemen was'not necessary, but why tho difference in treatment? Then the company talks of loyalty. Should it.be ull on one side? And how can they exDect • loyalty to continue if you are going to be taken advant'ago of because of your loyalty?;' .' \ : "To show how; loyalty pays: An 'en* gincer in _the Union Company's, employ injured himself while at sea. lie could havo gone ashore at a foreign port, but by so'doing he would have put the company < to; considerable expense. Rather than <lo this ho remained at his post, risking permanent injury; in the meanwhile. Eventually his vessel reached Australia, and the articles expired. He thus had no legal claim on the company.' Howe\"er, ho. has to .get medical: attention, and is some'time under the doctor's hands. How miich did ho got for his loyalty to tho company?: Just what the law allowed him —nothing. Again, engineers permanently, appointed, if they leavo theft'boats on transfer or aro. taken out at any time, thoir wages continue. But there are' engineers whs iljavo been, in; tho Union, Company's ship's 'for. six; v months, * arid . liave been brought ashoro at half an hour's notice, and received no payment, not even a day's pay in,lieu of notice.' .Of course, tho individual,cannot object too strongly, or his chancn of getting on the permanent list is nil. ,

' "To- go back to, the ,1908, agreement. •This, was for"three years, mid expired in 1911. In llarch of that year represents- I tiyes' the instituto met, the company, and endeavoured to obtain better conditions. The increased cost of'living was pointed out, and how wages.in other em-' ployment9 : had. increased, 'but without much effect. The company again at this interview raid they did not want to do anything that would compromise .the Commonwealth shipowners, and asked tho institute if.it was not tlie-samo. institute as'in Australia, and could we not have the samo conditions in New Zealand as in Australia? - On this being answered in tho affirmative, the company's, representative declared.that, they preferred to have, it that way. On it being, pointed: out to them ; that orice the instituto did this wo would no /longer have-tho privilege of making our own agreement, the reply was, in spite of'this, they much preferred to have it that. way. y Then they" offered to give an increase in wages of .£2 per month to fifth engineers, numbering" about: 15, and .£l, a month' to sixth engineers, i numbering about- eight,' and sign on. agreement for three years—other engineers nothing. . :, "As'an alternative, the 1908 agreement; Was to continue for eighteen months, or until tho award of the Federal Arbitration Court was given.'. Tho first proposition could not bo accepted, so there-was. nothing left but to accept the alternative proposal. The engineers' representatives undoubtedly understood that the said award would be adopted, although this is ' now repudiated by the company. But any fair-minded man, on hearing what took place at the interview, could do nothing less than say that <the company implied that the award , would- be accepted. If this iW&s.-notvunderst-ood/.bj- tho engineers in the'-company's employ,' why should they have waited patiently for two years? The engineers felt themselves abound in honour to accept tliisiaward after what hnd.'passed. -The difference between the IJiiioi! Company and the institute wow is • the'-;obtaining'of the conditions of the .Australin'n.award for.-New Zealand engineers. Even' this wa's-modified to a great extent by the instituto in their endeavour to 11 obtain an amicable,, agreement.

"The principal point at variance is the recognition, of the eight-hour -day. This the company will not concede,' although tliey have given it to the seamen and firemen, but in plaoo of the eight-hour day thei company. wish .to .impose, a :66-hours'. week before overtime can be counted, and a limitation of 1G hours a month—ithat.is a ,£2 payment, irrespective of the hours tho individual may have worked'. > .The 5G hours would work out very disadvantngeously to the engineer, for lie. could bo worked all; night and knocked 61f tho next day, thus preventing him exceeding tho 5G hours' limit—a very nice arrangement ;for the company.' Tho :company have given the,eight-hour day to the seuinicli, and firenl/jn, Why do they withhold it from the engineers? Surely, those holding responsible positions are entitled to this privilege.' Tlie eight-hour ' day is \rccognised throughout New Zealand.; Why _ should it be withheld from those who go to sea, who are already deprived, .by tho manner'of their avocation, of many fecial advantages enjoyed by thoso ashore,? ' "This is'[the-Union' Company who pose as being the best shipping company south of the Line. Their profits are enormous; how. many, times, .liavo they 'watered' their stock? And yet they deny to New Zealand employees the wages and conditions enjoyed in-Australia, In fact, nuife a number of their, engineers are working under the nward, being in vessels trading solely in the Commonwealth. ' . "The' wages that engineers are receiving are very liltlo better than,'they wc?e twenty year? ago. According to a statement of Mr. Young, secretary of the Seamen's Union, the other day the'engineers saved the position for the Union Company in 1890. If that is so none should know it better that tho Union Company. In 1803 the engineers, by a ballot, consented to a reduction in wages iitid that reduction remained'in forco until about 1897, when wages were restored to the noint,from which they had dropped in 1893. Since that time there has been very little increase with the exception of the rise in 1908. The general increase in wages has not applied to engineers who have received no benefit tn .set against th'' increased cost of living." It is understood that, broadly speakinj, tho marine engineers are now demanding; an increaso in wages of about fifteen per rent.