COOKS’ AND STEWARDS’ CASE

Evening Star, Issue 21747, 15 June 1934, Page 12

COOKS’ AND STEWARDS’ CASE

RESTORATION OF 10% CUT SOUGHT CONFERENCE ALLEGEDLY REFUSED MOHOWAI MEN GIVE NOTICE [Pen Unwed Press Association.] WELLINGTON, June 15. The cooks and stewards of the Monowai, which was due to sail for Sydney to-day, have given notice to the Union Company. Referring to u statement in the Press yesterday that, owing to the refusal of the members of the Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union to answer calls for employment. the sailing of the Makura has been delayed—it- has since been cancelled —Mr Kennedy, secretary of the. union, said the matter in dispute between the Union Company and the union went back to the time when 10 per cent, was taken off the wages in June. 1931. From that lime the union had asked for restoration of the cut. They had had meetings before the Conciliation Council, and .no agreement could be reached; therefore the award was cancelled under the amended Arbitration Act, so that there remained no award or any agreement, the union being left with 1 only the contracts they signed from time to time in the articles. On February 26, 1934, the union made application that the 10 per cent, cut be restored to members of the union employed by the Union Company. The union suggested that the matter be discussed at a round table conference. The manager was sick, and on the company’s suggestion the matter was pub off. Later it was again taken up with the company by the union, and the union was told that a conference could not take place, one reason being that other maritime unions had an interest in the matter as well as the cooks and stewards. The secretary of the union suggested, to the company that it would be advantageous to have a conference of all the unions concerned, with the company. The union had discussed the matter with the other maritime unions, and on Monday last representatives of the Seamen’s and the Cooks and Stewards’ Unions waited on Mr Smith (of the company) and discussed the matter with him.

The union’s proposal was that the employers be informed that the Seamen’s Union and the Cooks and Stewards’ Union desired to meet them in conference early in July for the purpose of discussing the question of the restoration of the wage cuts, work to proceed normally pending some decision. The reply to that was that the company would meet them to discuss their agreement. That was not the matter it was intended to discuss at all. The matter to be discussed was one of wages. The Press statement said it was the attitude of the union that stopped the Makura from leaving. That was not so; the responsibility was put on the owners themselves by their refusal to meet the unions in conference to discuss the question of wage restoration. Had that conference been arranged the Makura would have been worked in the ordinary course. It seemed the employers blamed the union for something it was not responsible for, and by refusing to meet the union in conference the responsibility rested on the owners and not on the union.

SHIPOWNERS' REPLY CONFERENCE ON ALL POINTS OFFERED Mr Bishop, secretary of the New Zealand Shipowners’ Federation, commenting on Mr Kennedy’s statement, says it is substantially correct, but not entirely so. For instance, while it was true that the awards were cancelled, a letter was sent to Mr Kennedy on December' 14, 1933, advising the federation that members were prepared'to endorse their articles with a statement that the wages and conditions of the expired award would continue to be observed, on the understanding that this arrangement was temporary until such time as the question for a new agreement between the federation and the union had been finalised. This had been done at Mr Kennedy’s own request, and had the effect of continuing the old agreement in operation pending the making of a new one. As to the immediate cause of the present dispute, the Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union and the Seamen’s Union had asked for a conference in July for the purpose of discussing restoration of wage reductions. The federation had replied that the employers were prepared to meet the unions jointly or separately, as they might prefer, for the purpose of discussing their agreements. The Seamen’s Union did not expire til) August 31, but the undertaking to meet in July, a month before its expiry, was in accordhance with the usual procedure. The shipowners wer© not prepared to limit the discussion to the one question of wages, but were prepared to discuss complete new agreements in accordance with the invariable custom of many years.