THE MEN'S CASE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1689, 4 March 1913, Page 5

THE MEN'S CASE.

STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY. STOUT OP THE NEGOTIATIONS. The following statement of the case from the Institute's point of view was made a few days ago by Mr. A. Wallace, secretary of t'ho Institute: — 'In 1908 an agreement between tho Union Company and the institute was arrived at regarding wages and conditions, f,- The wages asked for at that tiino were not obtained, a small increase only being I - granted. The agreemont was a comproV miss. One of tlio reasons' advanced by jj .. the management of, the company for not . weeding to tho institute's claims was Kiat ' they- might comprpmise the members of (the 1 Commonwealth Steam Ship-owners'

Associations of whioh they were Previous to this agreement, when engineers had to leave their ships through illness, etc., the chief and second engineers woro allowed pay and board money for ono' month, but although seamen and firemen got paid when they came ashore under similar circumstances, junior ■ engineers got no consideration. To do away with this' tEe institute agreed that all engineers should come under tho provisions of fhe. Shipping Act. ' ; ACCOMMODATION. "This has been taken advantage of in a manner never, anticipated by tho institute. The company say they highly appreciate their engineers. Well, they should do, for the management' must know how muoh. they are indebted to their engineers for keeping things going. But if the company do appreciate the engineers they have, a very poor .way of showing it. It is a matter beyond dispute that company has not' kept faith with its engineers in more instances than one. Let two suffice: There is a breach of faith over tbe Australian, award. Two years ago the company gave a written promise that the engineers' accommodation' in' several boats would bo improved, but up to the present nothing .has been done. The accommodation remains tho same. How different the treatment served out to the firemen! In scv-. eral.vessels passenger accommodation has been taken out and fitted up for them. This is not to say that better accommo- ■ dation for the firemen was not necessary, but why tho difference in treatment? Then the company talks of loyalty. Should it be all on one side? And how can they expect loyalty to continue if you ( are going to be taken advantage of because of your loyalty P. , AUSTRALIAN CONDITIONS. 'fTo go back to the. 1908 agreement. This was for throe years, and expired in' 1911. In March of that year representatives from the institute met the company, and endeavoured to obtain better conditions. ■ The increased cost of living was pointed out, and how wages in other employments had, increased, but without much effect. Tho company again at this interview; said they did riot want to do anything that would compromiso tho Commonwealth shipowners, and asked the institute.if. it was not|'the same institute'as.; in Australia, and could we njt hare tlie same conditions,;.in New Zealand as in Australia P On this being answered in the affirmative, the company's representative declared that they to have it that way.. On it being pointed out to them that onoe the institute did this we would no longer have the privilege of making our own agreement, the reply was, in spite of this, they much preferred to have it that way. Then they offered to givo an increase in wages of £i per month to fifth engineers', numbering about 15, and .01 a' month', to sixth engineers, numbering about eight, and sign an agreement for three years—other engineers nothing. • * '. . * ' waited FOR TWO YEARS. "As an-.alternative,, the 1908 agreement was to continue for eighteen months, or until the award of the Federal -Arbitration Court was given; ' The first proposition'could not. be accepted, so there was nothing left but to accept the alternative proposal. The engineers' representatives undoubtedly understood that the faid 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, conld do nothing less than say that the oompany implied'that the award would be accepted! If .this Was not understood by the engineers ; in the company's employ, why should they have waited patiently for two years? The ongineers felt themselves bound in honour to accept this award after what had passed.' The difference between the Union Company and the institute tow is the obtaining of the conditions'of the Australian award for New Zealand engineers. Even this was modified to a great extent by the institute in their endeavour to obtain. an amicable agreement. \

{ EIGHT-HOUR DAY,' , "Th'o principal point at variance is tho recognition 'of tho eight-hour day. This tho company will not concede, although they havo given it to the soainen and firemen,, but in place of the eight-hour day the company wish to impose a EG-hours 1 week beforo overtime can bo counted, and a limitation: of 16 hours a month—that is a £2 payment, irrespective of. tho hours tho individual may have worked. The 50 hours would work out very disadvanto tho engineer, for he oould bo worked all and knocked off tho next day, thus preventing him exceeding tho 50 hours' limit—a very nico arrangement for the company. Tho company Iravo givon tho oight-hour day to tho seamen. and firemen. Why do they withhold it from tho engineers P Surely, those holding responsiblo positions aro entitled to this privilego. Tho eight-hour day is recognised throughout Australia and Now Zealand. Why should it be withheld from those who go to sea, who aro already deprived, by tho manner of their avocation, of many social advantages enjoyed by those ashorep "This is the Union Company, who poso as being the best shipping company south of tho Line. Their profits are enormous; how many times have they'watorod'their stookP And yet they deny to Now Zealand employees the wages and conditions enjoyed in Australia. In fact, quito a number of their engineers aro working undor the award, being in vessels tradiug solely in the Commonwealth. . SAVED THE POSITION. Tho wages that engineers are receiving are very littlo better than they wero twenty years ago. According to a statement by Mr. Young, secretary of the Seaman s Union, tho other day tho engineers saved tho position for the Union Company in 1890. .If that is so nono should know it better than the Union Company. In 1893 tho engineers, by a ballot, c6nsented to a. reduction in wages, and that reduction remained in force until about 1697, when wages were restored to tho point from which they had dropped in 1803. Since that time there luts been very littlo increase, with the • exception of tiio rise in 1908. The general increase in wages

hag not applied to engineers who have received no benefit to set against the tincreased coat of living."