Seamen’s Union.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1922, Page 4

Seamen’s Union.

-DISPUTE BEFORE COURT. MR YOUNG’S ADDRESS. WELLINGTON, Sept. 4. In the course of his lengthy address to the Arbitration Court in the shipping dispute, Air T. W. Young, for the Union, said that the employers asked for a reduction of the number of holidays at sea. The Seamen’s Union thought it was only fair that Anjsuc Day should he allowed. In regard to weekly time off, the claim of the Union he said, was that men would sooner have half a day off in lieu of payment, but the proposal that overtime rates should he paid was in the nature of a penalty upon the employer. The Union also sought a limitation upon the accumulation of time off. Another claim; which he submitted was only reason-j able was that a seaman should he noti-1 fied not later than 7 a.m. that lie is tot he given an afternoon off. The praci tice of granting a rest of twenty minutes for a smoke at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. daily was instituted during the war, and it was contended that the rest had proved beneficial to both employers and employees. The request that cyanide should be used in the fumigation of the men’s living quarters was desirable, as the best means of destroying vermin. ]'t was asked by the Union that ships ho fitted with as’li ejectors. There were some 38 vessels in the Union Company’s licet affected by this dispute which were not fitted with asli ejectors. He suggested that a committee consisting of represenatives of either side should investigate the overtime sheets of the company for the past year, and report as to the amount of overtime worked in the discharge of ashes, and that until the report was submitted the Court should not announce its decision in the matter.

Mr W. G. Smith, .representing the Union Steam Ship Company, said his company objected to the setting up of such a committee, hut had no objection to the Court investigating the overtime sheets. He objected to the suggestion as a matter of principle. Mr Young then dealt at considerable length with the question or preference. The employers. he said, sought to delete the old clause, and wished to replace it with a non-dis-crimination provision. He could not understand the reason for that. Not a single charge had been made against tlie organisation on the question of preference. No other organisation in the country had administered the clause more reasonably. Mr Young read the preamble to the Labour sections of the Peace Treaty, which stated that the League of Nations had for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice, and whereas conditions ol labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to largo numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled, and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required, etc. He quoted these words from the Peace Treaty on account of the attacks being made at present from many quarters on the question of preference, including the attempt- to deprive the Court of the right to grant preference. His Honour remarked that Mr Young was now going beyond the scope of the present dispute, Mr Young said he understood from the judgment of the Court in the Auckland waterside foreman’s ease v. the Union Steam Ship Company that preference would not he granted a union that had a rule empowering it to impose a levy on its members. The executive, anticipating such action as lie had indicated being taken, had passed a resolution deleting the levy charge from the rules of the organisation on the Court intimating that preference would he granted. I

Mr Al. j. Reardon said that would not prevent the executive from making a voluntary levy. His Honour: You are not compelled to expel a man because he dee.-, not pay his lew.

Air Young: AVo are noL likely to do

Proceeding, he spoke in high terms of the general character and conduct of seamen employed on ships engaged in Now Zealand coastal trade. His Honour said his experience as a Magistrate at Auckland and Wellington had been that seamen’s troubles usually occurred in connexion with men employed on foreign trading. Mr Young then proceeded to deal with ether phases of the dispute. The request of the shipowners for the setting up of a Disputes Committee to discuss differences that may arise concerning seamen and firemen was strenuously opposed hv the Union. No such provision existed at the present time. The employers suggested that the committee should deal with any matters arising out of or ewiiueeted with the award including questions relating to the manning ot any vessel or the carrying of any class of cargo. Mis Honour said it was absurd that vessels should he held up through little disputes that might occur at any time. Time and again these small differences had occurred and had been settled by force majeure or other means. Was there no other means of settling such, small matters.

Mr Young: We usually manage to settle these little matters among ourselves. No Disputes Committee will stop me doing this or that. Tlis Honour: If you have Disputes Committees in which both sides luw ■ confidence I think that would tend to stop a lot of these tiddly-winkv trifles that probably cause more trouble than bigger matters. Air Young said tlie principle was all right, but would not work out satisfactorily. A dispute might occur in the night just before a vessel was to sail. He personally objected to being called out at 1 o’clock in the morning to settle a dispute.

After a discussion of the woji don? by other Disputes Committees the subject dropped.