SHIPPING DISPUTE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9794, 18 October 1917, Page 7

SHIPPING DISPUTE

AGREEMENT INTERPRETED ■JUDGMENT OF THE ARBITRATION COURT. The judgment of the Arbitration Court war, filed yesterday in regard to the application of the Inspector of Awards for tho interpretation of the agreement entered into on March 9th, 1917, between the Federated Seamen’s liiion and the Shipowners Federation. At the hearing 31r T. S. Weston appeared for the Shipowners’ Federation, the Seamen's Union not being represented. Tho full text of tho judgment of the court is as follows: —

A: Clause 9—(,a) At sea the hours of labour for deck hands should uot bo more than eight in a day, to bo worked as may bo required by the employer. (b) At sea the hours of labour for stokehold and engine-room hands should be uot more than eight in a day, to bo worked as may be required by the employer. Clause 31—A daymeans from 12 midnight to 12 midnight. Question: Has the employer tho right at sea to work seamen any eight hours in. any day? Answer: The answer to this question is in tho affirmative. It seems, clear that the employer has such right uudor tho agreement. The of the clause apparently was to limit tho ordinary working hours of tho seamen to eight hours per day, while leaving the employer the fullest discretion as to when the hours were to bo worked. The discretion, of courso, must be exercised reasonably and so that the seaman is allowed proper intervals for rest and meals, except in cases of emergency. B: 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 5 p.m. and 7 a.in., the ship may, at tho option of the master, be treated as at-sea_. Question: When a vessel arrives in port and leaves again the same day, or when a vessel arrives and leaves within eight hours between 5 p.m. and a.m.. and is treated “as at sea” anu seamen have performed, _ say, two hours’ work before arrival in port and will be required to perform- two hours duty after departure, cau the balance of tho eight hours to bo worked in port be worked at any time (without payment of overtime) as may be required by the master and as provided in clause 9 (a) and (b)? Answer: In tho circumstances stated, tho ship being treated “as at sea” it follows from clause 9 (a) and (b) that tho balance of the eight hours must be worked as required by the master , in accordance with our reply to question A. C: Clause 11—(b> The hours of labour in port for -deck, engine-room and stokehold hands should be between i a.m. and 5 p.m., except that on days of departure from a port the chief engineers may set watches three hours before tho time fixed for the departure 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 bo worked at any time between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. (meal hour excluded) as may bo required by tho employer ? Answer; In the circumstances stated the balance of Die eight hours can bo worked at any time between 7 a.m and 3 p.m. (meal hours excluded) as may he required by the employer. We. understand that tho union claims that the eight hours should bo completed in. mediately after the .-Irrival of the vessel in port, but we can see nothing in the agreement to justify this contention.

D: Clause 18—Tho meal Lour 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 p.'rn.; for tea, if working overtime, and one hoxir between f> p.m. and 7 p.m., and if work is to be continued after 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. Seamen should , not be under any obligation to curtail any meal-time even on tho terms of payment for overtime. Question: Where -a vessel (such as is tho case regularly with the s.s. Fateena) has to sail at 12.45 p.m., can the master send some of the men to dinner at noon and the rest of the men at- 1 p.m., or can all the men bo required to take their dinner after the departure of tho ship? Answer: Wo see no reason why, in such cases as stated, part of tho men should not be sent to dinner at noon and the rest of the men at 1 p.m. Wo have not sufficient information before us ns to the hearing of the latter part of the question, and we therefore decline to answer it. It must be understood that tho above answers are not binding upon the court in tho event of any of tho questions arising hereafter for decision in any proceedings formally before the court. Wc think it necessary to make this reservation, as wo have not had the benefit of any argument from the workers’ point of view.

(e) The court is further requested to decide if, where the manning scale of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act allows small vessels to carry less than six able seamen, it is essential to tho safety of such vessels that two deckhands .should be employed on deck at the. same time in addition to tho officer in charge? With regard to this question, we think it open to doubt whether wo have jurisdiction to deal with tho matter. A.s, however, tho monibers of the court havo been appointed a Commission of Inquiry under section 34 of the Regulation of Trade and. Commerce Act. 1914, we have tho right to inquire and report as to tho necessity or advisability of tho cxcrciso by tho Governor of the power conferred upon him. under section 25 of the Act, of modifying the provisions of the industrial agreement under consideration, and, we thunk, is sufficient to justify us in making the following observations. There i 5 nothing in tho agreement or in the Slipping and Seamen's Act requiring that there should bo two men in a watch in addition to the officer in charge. Tho question, however, is whether or not, in order to secure tho safe navigation of small coasting steamers such a provision is necessary.

It was shown by tho evidence of several captains who have been engaged in the coastal trade for periods varying from ton to thirty years that the custom on these small steamers bad always been to havo one man only on deck in addition to the officer on the bridge. Before the making of tho industrial agreement now under consideration. although nominally two

men wore iu tho watch, in actual practice only one man was on heck at a time, each of the two men in the wntoh taking two hours ou and two hours off. Since tho agreement was made, in effect tho same practice has continued, the only difference being that the one man is on wat-rn tor tec whole shift.

The harbourmaster of Wellington, speaking with a knowledge of the practice above-mentioned extending over the last twenty years, stated that, in his opinion, the practice was a perfectly safe one, having regard to the nature of the service in which the steamers concerned wore engaged. If there had boon any reasonable ground for requiring at least two men on a watch it was to bo expected that some stipulation to that effect would have been embodied in the agreement, but not only was this not so, but wo find that Mr W. Young, the secretary of the union on Juno liitb. 1917, writing to one of the employers apropos cf some alleged irregularities in the working of the agreement which had been entered into in March, 1917, states that when at the conference on the. agreement, ‘‘it was stated to him and by other representatives of the union that under the right-hour clay the shipowner could please himself whether ho worked watch' and watch at sea or day work, and bo could also please himself whether he worked two or three watches, and whether ho had one, two, three, or more men on a watch.”

In face of the evidence given before us, and of the above statement of Mr Young, wo cannot believe that the union has any substantial ground tor its claim that there should bo at least two men in a watch at sea in addition to tho officer on tho bridge- Owing to tho failure of the union to attend at tho hearing and to submit any evidence or arguments for our consideration, we have been compelled to base our conclusions on tho evidence and arguments submitted by the employers only; but, baring our judgment upon tho material before us, we have no hesitation in stating that, in our opinion, it is not essential, iu order to ensure the safe navigation of tho vessels iu question, and tho consequent security of tho passengers .and crews on such vessels, that the ’.two deckhands should be employed on deck at the same time in addition to tho officer in charge. The above is the opinion of the majority of the court.

ANOTHER VESSEL DELAYED

Press Association. AUCKLAND, October 17. Tho coastal steamer Awaiiou lias been delayed since 10 o’clock last night, four of tho deck hands having left after giving 24 honrs’ notice, without giving a reason. So far the agents have been unable to fill their places. The Awahou is a vessel having only one seaman on watch whilst at sea.