SHIPPING DIFFICULTY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9792, 16 October 1917, Page 2

SHIPPING DIFFICULTY

BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT SEAMEN’S UNION NOT REPRESENTED. Tho Arbitration Court was yesterday engaged tho application of tho Inspector of Awards for the interpretation of tho agreement made between shipping owners and the Seamen’s Union a© to how work shall be carried on under , tho eight hours system. The Bench was occupied by Mr Justice Stringer, Messrs W. Scott, and J. A. McCullough. The Labour Department was represented by Mr G. Lightfoot, inspector of awards, and Mr T. S. Weston appeared for - the shipowners. The questions submitted for consideration of the court wero as follow; -

A: Clause 9 —(a) At sea tho hours of labour for. deck hands should not be more than eight in a day, to be worked as may. be required by the employer.- (b) - At- sea tho hours of lanour for stokehold and engmeroom liands should be not- more than eight m a day, to be' ; worked as may he required by the employer (a day means xrom midnight till midnight). Question: Has the employer tho right at sea to work seamen any eight hours in any day? .. -li : Clause 9—(d) When a vessel arrives in port and leaves again the same day, or when she arrives and leaves within eight' hours between 6 p.m. and 7 n.nv.' the ship may, at the option of the master, be treated as at sea. Question: When a vessel arrives in port and loaves again the same day, or when a vessel arrives and leaves within eight hours between 5. p.m. and 7 a.m., and is treated “as at sea” and seamen have peri'ormed, say, two hours’ work betoro arrival in port and will be required to perform, two ■ hours’ duty after departure, can the balance of the eight -hours to be worked in port be worked at any time (without payment of overtime) as may bo required by the master and as provided in clause 9 (a) and O: Clause 11—fb) The hours of labour in port for deck, engine-room, nnd stokehold hands should be between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., except that on days of departure from a port the chief engineers may set watches three hours before tbe time fixed for the d®P aT " Jure of the vessel. Question: When a vessel. arrives in port and a seaman has worked, say, four hours at sea before arrival, can the balance of the eight hours be worked at any time between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. (meal hour excluded) as may be required by tbe D : Clause 18—The meal hour allowed in port shall be for breakfast, any one hour between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.; for dinner, any one hour between 12 noon and 2 n.ni.; for tea, if working overtime, any one hour between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., and if work is to be continued after ll r p.m. one hour for supper bebetiweon 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. Seamen should not be under any obligation to curtail any meal-timo even on the terms of payment for overtime. Question: Where a vessel (such as is the case re. gularly with the s.s. Pateena) Iras to sail at 12.45 p.m., can the master send some of the men to dinner at noon and tbo rest of the men at 1 p.m., or can all the men be required to take their dinner after the departure of the ship ? B: The court is further requested to decide if, whore the manning scale of the Shipping and Seamen Act allows vessels to carry less than six able seamen, it is essential to the safety or such vessels that two deck hands should be employed on the deck at the same time in addition to the officer in charge? In tho first instance Mr T. . Weston, ' who ' represented the snipping companies, suggested an adjournment as the Seamen’s Union was not represented, but the court decided to proceed with tbe matter. “It is much to be regretted,” said Mr Justice Stringer, ‘’‘that the union is not represented, hut if the union chooses not to attend we must go on without its aid. T see by the papers that the union says it will have nothing to do with the-Arbitration Court. I do not think we should have to go and petithnt the union to come here,”

Mr Weston, in his opening address, said that the attempt had been made by the Seamen’s Union to take advantage of the terms of the new agreement -and yet retain the watch and watch system to manoeuvre more overtime. He referred to a decision given .by Mr Justice Higgins in Australia in, 19X1, who decided that with the introduction of the eight hours system -a ship could be worked at the will of the owners so long as tho maximum ■number of hours was not worked. It appeared --that .the watch and watch system, had-originated during the voyage of Columbus to America. It was specially suitable for sailing vessels, and-when the steamers wero started it was adopted by them. It was contended that with tho eight hours’ system tho vessels could bo worked in the interests of efficiency and economy. Tho men could be employed as desired, so long aa the eight hours a day was not exceeded, and Mr Justice Higgins had given support to this view. They .could only be called upon to work the eight hours, except where exceptional circumstances arose, when overtime was charged. There was no ne--ccosity for the continuance of the old watch and watch system, and the demand of Mr Young, tbe union secretary, for a regular routine was simply a device to get more money after sufficiently advantageous terms had been arranged. M hat Air Voung said in effect, was, “Once yon nave fixed a routine for a voyage you cannot alter it during that voyage.” Evidence was then called to show that past experience on the New Zealand coast was that a one-man watch was sufficient, and that the chances of collision wore very slight. The lollowing witnesses were examined: John Beaton, mate of the Kotumu, trading between Napier and Wellington- Arthur H. Fisk, master of the Waverlev; W. A. IVildman, master of the Kaitoa; Captain James E. Dawson, harbourmaster; Captain Gibson of the Kapuni; Robert J. Hay, master of tbe Nikau; A. Robinson, master of the Putiki; Captains Farm (Rimu) and Texcira (Apanui). The court reserved judgment.