THE SHIPPING HOLD-UP.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1741, 16 October 1917, Page 3

THE SHIPPING HOLD-UP.

ARBITRATION COURT PROCEEDINGS. Matters in connection with the recent hold-up of the coastal “mosquito” fleet were advanced a further stage at Wellington yesterday, at a sitting of the Arbitration Court. The Court met to consider an application (filed by the Inspector of Awards) for the interpretation of certain clauses in dispute in the existing agreement between the shipowners and the men. His Honour Mr Justice Stringer presided, and with him on the Bench were Mr W. Scott (employers’ representative), and Mr J. A. M'Cullough (workers’ representative). The Labour Department was represented by Mr 6. Lightfoot (Inspector of Awards), and Mr T. S. Weston appeared for tbe shipowners. “Is the union represented?” asked his Honour. The Inspector of Awards said that unfortunately there was no appearance of the union. He had put the matter before the union personally and very plainly, but it had had no effect. His Honour: It is much to be regretted that the union is not represented in the hearing of this application, which concerns an industrial agreement made between the parties themselves, and who are therefore responsible for the language in which it is couched. It might bo expected that at least the union would attend and assist the Court, but if the union chooses not to attend wc must go on without them and do our best. Mr Weston said that there were four clauses in tbe agreement which the Court was asked to interpret, but there was another question. The Court, as a Commission under the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act, was being asked to decide if, where the manning scale of the Shipping and Seamen Act allows small vessels to carry less than six able seamen, it is essential to the safety of such vesels that' two deck hands should he employed on deck at the same time, in addition to the officer-in-charge. His Honour: That is the most important point ? Counsel: Yes, I think so. Mr Weston went on to detail the circumstances leading up to the making of the agreement and the subsequent conferences, early in September, between representatives of the owners and the men. He stressed tbe point that the “one man in a watch” principle was first laid down by Young, the secretary of the Seamen’s Federation. At no time during the conferences was there any mention of two men being wanted in a watch. At the conclusion of the last conference Young flatly refused to refer the agreement to the Arbitration Court, saying the union would take other means. Two days later the seamen struck, declaring it was unsafe to go to sea without two men in a watch. This was the first heard of such a demand, which was evidently an afterthought, not for the safety of. human lives, hut to secure an interpretation which would lead to more overtime. Even if there were' two men in a watch, one of them would be at the wheel and the other would be doing some other work, but neither of them would- be on the look-out —that would not be part, of the duty of either man. The places worked by the majority of the vessels of the mosquito fleet could only be worked by such ships on account of their draught. If there were to be two men in a watch it would mean the finding of employment for over 300 seamen, and structural alterations of the ships to accommodate them. In the present instance the employers had felt themselves forced to see the matter through. Evidence was then given by Arthur Henry Fisk, master of the Waverley, Captain Dawson, harbourmaster at Wellington, Arthur Percy Gibson, master of the Kapuni, W. A. Wildman, master of the Kakoa, Robert J. Hay, master of the Nikau, Archie Robertson, master of the Putiki, Captain Parris, master of the Rimu. Mr Weston then proceeded to refer to the other points for interpretation. On the question: “Has the employer the right, at sea, to work seamen any eight hours in any day?” he referred to a recent decision of Mr Justice Higgins in Australia in support of his contention that the question should be answered in the affirmative. His Honour: It seems that if the words of the clause mean anything, they mean exactly what they say. The next point at issue was clause D (a) of the agreement: —“When a vessel arrives in port and leaves again the same day, or when she arrives and leaves within eight hours, between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., the ship may, at the option of the master, be treated as at sea.” Other matters in the agreement, which were the subject of dispute, were the hours of labour when a vessel has arrived in port, and a man has worked portion of bis watch; also the question of meal hours under certain conditions. Having heard counsel in support of the clauses as they stand, the Court reserved its decision.