HOURS AT SEA.

Taranaki Daily News, 7 September 1922, Page 5

HOURS AT SEA.

HIGHER WAGES OPPOSED. SLUMP IN SHIPPING. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, September 6. Tn the Arbitration Court to-day Mr. T. O. Bishop addressed the Court on behalf of the Ship-owners’ Federation. He said the case was a simple one. There was a world-wide slump in trade which had affected shipping. The causes of the slump were outside their control, but they must adjust their affairs to the altered conditions. Certain gains in wages and conditions were obtained by the seamen by negotiation in 1920. It was believed the conditions then existing would continue for the period of the agreement. The problem for the Court was to determine what adjustments were necessary to enable the shipping industry of this country to be carried on at a cost which the country could afford to pay. at the same time having regard to the necessity for paying a fair wage to those employed and providing a fair return for the capital invested. The employers did not attack the principle of the eight-hour day, but overtime on board ship was different from overtime ashore. A great deal of overtime money had to be paid on ships without extra hours being worked, therefore the rate should not be a high one He submitted that in coastal shipping sailing after 5 p.m. should be permitted.

THE CASE CONCLUDED.

NECESSITY FOR LOWER WAGES. Wellington, Last Night. At the Arbitration Court, Mr. Smith, cn behalf of the Union Company, replied to Mr. Young, whom he complimented upon the manner in which he had conducted thcase, which was an object-lesson to advocates generally. He said the new proposals of the union—making drastic alterations in the existing conditions, such as a daily rate of pay, the inclusion of boys and crews’ attendants, the demand for a manning scale in excess of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act—could not be made as coun-ter-proposals, in view of the ruling of Mr. Justice Sim some years ago. His Honour said he had been under the impression all along that there had been a cross-citation in the dispute. Mr. Smith pointed out that such was not the case, the union having merely brought up counter-proposals. He referred in detail to the conditions of work and pay, and concluded by saying that the evidence given on behalf of the employers showed that a substantial reduction in wages was absolutely necessary if the producers were to be kept on their feet. In its present condition the New Zealand shipping industry was a very sick one, and a surgical operation was necessary to remove the cancerous growths which had developed practically unchecked during the war. Th? unions in the United Kingdom had voluntarily agreed to reductions, which were Somewhat greater than those asked by the employers here. Mr. Young had argued that the overtime earned should not be taken into consideration- in fixing the wages of men, but. this did not apply in the case of seamen, who by working overtime were not deprived of any home life through being unable to leave the ship. On the court’s decision in regard to wages would depend whether industries generally were to be started on the road to prosperity or whether the present slump was to be continued. He submitted that the question of the wages in Australia was quite irrelevant, as the conditions in the Commonwealth were different from those in New Zealand.

His Honor said the Court would probably be unable to consider the making of the award until the waterside workers’ case had been concluded, but he hoped to have the award framed before the end of the month. He congratulated the parties upon the able manner in which they had conducted the case.