THE BALLOT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1690, 5 March 1913, Page 7

THE BALLOT.

HO.W IT WAS TAKEN. ;AN ALMOST UNANIMOUS VOTE. Some fact9,in connection with the ballot Whioh determined the present action of the engineers were supplied to a reporter yesterday by a prominent member qf the Marine Engineers' Institute. Tho engineers taking part in tho ballot, ha slated,' were asked to say, in effect, aye or no to the following propositions:— Accepting the Union Company's'offer. Submitting the case to the Arbitration Court. ' Giving 21 hours' notice to cease'work in; tho event of the Company refusing to accede to tho institute's demands. The result was an all . but unanimous vote in favour of giving 2-J-hours' notice unless the company camd to terms. , A four-fifths majority is ' necessary,, under ithe rules of the Marine Engineers' Institute, to carry a proposal of this nature, and in the present case ' the required majority was greatly, exceeded.' Three weeks were occupied in taking the ballot, and i the conditions necessarily were such that very few of the. men had an opportunity of discussing the proposals. with liny large number of their fellow-engineers. The men who voted , were scattered in ,their ships all round the 'New Zealand coast and between here and Australia. It is, therefore, claimed, on their behalf, that the result of the ballot represents an absolutely, independent expression of opinion. Each engineer had to come to a determination -practically on his own initiative. Thq ofiioers of the institute attach great importance to this point, and stress the fact : that no influence was brought to bear, on tho men to induce them to'arrive-at-the determination they did. \ ' , ,

THE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS. , It is contended-for the engineers; that the Union Company acted unreasonably in starting conciliation proceedings while the ballot was in, progress .since, for. all that it knew; [ 'fko' eiigineers'rniight. hw tho' action 1 tak&'i by* tfio' 'institute.' I'he company, it is stated, undoubtedly knew that the ballot was being taken. , The. engineer.- who., supplied the, foregoing made some further observations on the' notion taken by the. institute. The present dispute, he stated, referred .to the engineers in' all Union Company steamers Which touched at New Zealand. Engineers employed by the Union Company in Australia; were getting all that the Now Zealand engineers wore,asking for, and yet; th<same. 'company- refused these terms in New' Zealand, live TJuion .Companv, the engineer remarked, took up a very different stand 'in 1893, when it induced New, Zealand engineers to consent to ; a ;-reduction of wages because wages had been reduced in Australia. While it was a fact, he added, that, broadly speaking,, the engineers were demanding a 15 per .cent, increase in wages, this did not "apply all round., Chief engineers in the lower grade -boats, -if the demands were' granted, would 'benefit i to the extant'of JJI per month, or eightpence per day. . - ' . "We have tried' by every means ( m our power," continued the engineer, ' not to impose any/difficulty or inconvenience on the public, and possibly have injured our own position ill this ,way, but, this is not 'a case of weakening, it is a ease of considering the 'general public. We have gone so far how that we will see it through. So far as tho legal position is concerned, we are. advised that wo are on perfectly safe ground. As to, the statement that we have acted with precipitation,. we have been endeavouring to come to terms with the company since. October, and have gone as far as we possibly could in the way of peaceful negotiation.