ENGINEERING DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 49, 22 November 1926, Page 16

ENGINEERING DISPUTE

SHIP'S REPAIRS ASHORE

{JVHO SHOULD DO THHM?

Dominion Special.

Auckland, November 20.

A dispute between the marine engineers and the shore engineers was heard in the Arbitration Court this morning. It arose out of the opposition of the Amalgamated Engineering Union to the inclusion in the new award of clauses relating to the employment of members of the Marine Engineers’ Institute. At the outset, Mr. Justice Frazer said he did not think the Court would ever seek to deprive a marine engineer of work on his own ship while the ship was out of commission. Mr. Sommerville, on behalf of the institute, submitted that marine engineers were more competent to do work on board ships than were shore engineers. Mr. Justice Frazer thought the question should be dealt with from the point of view that some shore men were competent. It looked as though shore engineers wanted to compel marine engineers working ashore to pay the protective fee of the union, said Mr. Sommerville. However, the institute did not want the marine engineer to have to join the union simply because he happened to be ashore for a time. The marine engineer had better pay and conditions than the shore engineer, and therefore should not be forced to belong to a union which had obtained no benefits for him. Engineers’ work aboard ship was the special prerogative of the marine engineer. On behalf of the Union Steam Ship Company, Mr, N. G. Smith said it had Always been the practice of the shipping companies throughout the world to employ the ships’ engineers. Their employment bad not only been allowed for manv years past under awards for the Amalgamated Engineering Union, but it was provided for in the marine engineers’ award itself, and the union could not deprive engineers of the institute of rights finder that award. Seagoing engineers were far more competent to do overhauling work on ships than was the average shore engineer. This was clearly proved by the fact that shipowners were willing to pay marine engineers for such work at higher rates. If the Court was to grant the union’s demand and cut out members of the institute, then the provisions of the marine engineers’ award would be materially affected in regard to employment of sea-going engineers when their vessels were out of commission attd undergoing repairs. It was most important for the sake, of public safety that repair work on ships should be done thoroughly by skilled engineers acquainted" with the needs and circumstances.

Mr. Barter for the union took exception to the fact that the efficiency of the shore engineers had been contrasted adversely with that of marine engineers. It was contrary to fact that shore engineers were inferior. The men whom marine engineers affected to despise were the very men who trained marine apprentices. The union held that a marine engineer who had been signed off and who went to work in shore Shops should be a member of the union. The institute had taken up the attitude that engineers who went to sea must join the institute, but they refused to allow institute members ashore to belong to the union. Mr. Barter said he had never heard of such a ridiculous proposal in any part of the world. Decision was deferred.