“STANDING-BY” WAGES

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 974, 17 May 1930, Page 2

“STANDING-BY” WAGES

RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAY An interesting point has recentlv arisen in connection with the responsibility f#s the payment of members of the crew standing by when a vessel is ashore the **W eeklv Summary.” .-\ steamer went ashore at Point Ceres on November 7. and, the position being serious, th* crew was taken off. The boat was floated on l»ecembe.r 22 and taken im» Gibraltar. The discharge of the canro was completed by January 12, and by ih19tli practically all the underwriters admitted that the vessel was a constructive total loss. On February 5 temporary repairs were completed, and the vessel wa« handed over to the purchasers on March 25. In the meanwhile, the crew had been kept at Gibraltar from November 7 tQ December 15, on which date they were paid off and repatriated. Tlie masterchief officer and second and third engineers and hoatswa n. who had been kfi.e on by specific agreement with the SaU vage Association’s special officer, were discharged on February 5. the date ore which the vessel was effectively taker! over by underwriters’ represer tatives. J With regard to the expenses of thA officers who were kept by the ship until February 5, the average adjusters! stated that they had no hesitation iri allowing these as sue and labou# charges, but they had some hesitaturi in including the rest of the crew a claim against underwriters in an * form. It was then decided by thA shipowners’ representatives to take court 4 sel’s opinion. This was done, and b«S advises that underwriters in effect toovj possession of the vessel from the data of the notice of abandonment, as suT>4 sequently they accepted this notice, aM though at the time it was given they dlrl not do so. He therefore considers that) underwriters, having taken over the pro* perty, took over the benefits and liabilH ties of ownership as from the date of tTTd casualty, and they therefore became liab)<i to pay the wages of the crew, who. m his opinion, were kept by the owners standing-by in case they were required for the benefit to the owners of the ves» sel, i.e., the underwriters. It will be ini teresting to hear whether the ers have adopted this view, and. if an whether underwriters have admitted their liability. 11