SEAMEN'S WAGES DISPUTE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 82, 15 July 1910, Page 4

SEAMEN'S WAGES DISPUTE.

i A SAILOR'S MONTH. I J By Telegraph—Press Association. I Wellington, Last Night. j Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.M., gave his re- ' served judgment to-day in the action . brought by the Wellington branch ot the Australasian Federated Seamen's Union against the Wairau Steam Ship Com- ! pany, a claim for £lO penalty for an , alleged breach of the seamen's award. i On May 2 last the steamer Blenheim re- ; r.t wed articles at Wellington, and the , crew commenced work under the new articles the same afternoon. At the end of May the defendant steamship 'company refused to pay the crew thirty days' wages at thirty days to the month I on the current articles. The crew were | paid up to May 2 under the old articles, I and at the end of the month they claimed that, having signed the new articles on the afternoon of the same day, they were entitled to thirty days' pay, and that as thirty days had always been considered a sailor's month they were entitled to a month's pay (£7), as fixed by the award, without deduction. Defendant tendered each seaman £0 15s Od, being payment for thirty days at the award rates, calculated as part of the calendar month, but this was refused. The offence was not that the defendant company refused to pay the crew thirty days' wages, hut that it refused to pay them a month's wages, under the award, calculated (by » custom) at thirtv dnvs to the month. 1 ~. m._.i.!_ ' ;j 1.1.. 4. i.1.,.4-

His Worship said the argument that each seaman was entitled to a month's wages, as fixed by the award, because lie had worked thirty days, could only be sustained if it were proved that the words "per month," mentioned in clause 2, meant "per month of thirty days," and not per calendar mouth. The onus of proving this rested on the plaintiff, and although the defendant admitted that the custom which reeards a sailor's month as containing thirty davs. had not been observed, vet the Magistrate was not satisfied that the breach of that custom amounted to a breach of the award. Judgment was accordinglv entered for the defendant company, with costs (£1 Is). Leave to appeal was granted. There were two other actions brought by the Union against the Motueka Steam Ship Company and Captain Thomas Eekford, master of the steamer Opawa, respectively, and these arose out of a similar set of circumstances. Tb« actions were deferred nemlins decision in the case of the Blenheim Company. ... , .... ...,.*