CONCILIATION BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVIII, Issue 275, 26 November 1897, Page 5

CONCILIATION BOARD.

SEAMEN'S UNION V. EMPLOYERS.

The members of the above Board met at 10 a.m. to-day, when there were present the Chairman Rev. George Burgess, Mr W. H. Lucas and Mr J. M. Shera; also Messrs Belcher and Marks representing the Seaman's Union, and Mr Leyland representing the Leyland and O'Brien Timber Company. The Chairman said they would first hear Mr Leyland with regard to the agreement. The seventh clause of the Board's previous finding was, "That there is no necessity for the recommendation of the Board to apply to Messrs Leyland and O'Brien so long as they pay the same rate of wages as at present." Mr Belcher said he would give some reasons why Messrs Leyland, O'Brien and Co. should be bound by agreement. He thought it most essential that everybody should be bound. Force of circumstances might cause the firm to alter the present rate of wages unless the agreement was signed. As a matter of fact the agreement submitted simply stated that the present rate of wages should be paid for a period of two years. Mr Leyland said he threw himself back on clause 7 of the Board's previous finding. He contended the Board did not suggest that their firm should be bound for two years. The agreement was decidedly unfair ; ~it omitted certain exemptions. Nothing was said about the overtime clause. Chairman : The first clause of this agreement excludes your firm from the most of the finding. Mr Leyland said they had been .cited to appear to ..show cause why the agreement had not; been complied with. During the three., months that had elapsed, since the finding of the Board liis linn had paid the same wages as before, and although exempt from paying overtime, had done so, in eases when recommended by the captain. Their men were perfectly satisfied, and he did not see why they should be asked to sign an agreement binding them for two years, especially when the finding of the Board stated." so long as they pay the same rate of wages."

Chairman : What is the first essential of an agreement? Mr Leyland : I believe that time is the essence of a contract.

Chairman : Then we must have a term in the agreement. Mr Leyland said he thought that as they had never given the slightest shadow of reason for a dispute they should never have been brought before the Board at all. In fact, a member of the Board said so, and the finding of the Board coincided with his remarks. Mr Leyland said he had a great admiration for the. law under which they met. Tt was in conformity with the ethics of Christianity, and he felt that they should be very careful in seeing that such a law was not used unjustly. Therefore he did not think they should be asked to sign an agreement which put them under a penalty clause when there had not been any dispute. The Chairman said the penalty was £500. unless it was arranged to be a smaller amount. Mr Leyland said he was quite willing to initial clause 7 of the Board's finding, which was the only one that affected his iirm, but he did not think they should be penalised. Chairman: Have you considered what would be your position if no agreement was signed. Mr Leyland : That as long as we pay the present rate of wages there would not be any difficulty. Tf we competed with other steamers then Mr Belcher would be justified in compelling them to sign the agreement binding them to the whole finding. Mr Belcher : I must impress upon the Board the absolute necessity of the agreement. The Board's work is simply thrown away if linns are not bound to conform to the finding. If Messrs Leyland and O'Brien intended to pay the present rates what harm was there in signing the agreement ?

Mr Leyland said if an agreement was drafted that set forth the exemptions as well as liabilities then he hoped a settlement might be arrived at. The Chairman said the Board would consider the matter and acquaint Mr Leyland with the result later on.

NORTHERN STEAMSHIP COMPANY.

The next matter dealt with was the application in which the Northern Steamship Company, Captain Shaw, Captain Braidwood, and Captain McGregor were called upon to show cause why the finding of the Board had not been complied with. The Chairman said the special point to he dealt with was the consideration of another clause with regard to other firms trading' to the same ports as those included in the finding of the Board. Mr Ranson said he had framed a clause which might he inserted in the finding of the Board. It was on the lines of Judge Williams' recont decision, and the shipowners were prepared to accept the recommendations of the Board with that clause added:—"That the above named firms and the Union shall be bounded by the provisions of this agreement, for the term of the agreement, provided that if any other person or firm trading with steamers or vessels propelled other than by sails to any port served by the above named owners (auxiliary vessels or vessels propelled otherwise than by sails being" employed, such provision as shall be approved of by both parties to this agreement, or that may be fixed by the Board of Conciliation) in conducting their business shall not conform with such terms and conditions, the Union within 14 days after notice ,in writing shall take the necessary steps under the Act to compel them to do so, and if the Union fails to commence and carry out proceedings, or if having taken and carried out such proceedings it shall be unable to compel such person or firm to conform with the terms or conditions, then the parties bound by this agreement shall thereatfer be released from any further obligations to conform to such terms and conditions. Mr Ranson sakl that if any arrangement was arrived at it would not take effect until these other vessels were brought before the Board in order that they might all start with a definite arrangement. Chairman : You can give notice to the Union and then action will be taken. Mr Ranson said they did not want to be spies upon what wages were paid by other companies. lie thought the Union should look after that part of the matter. The Chairman : I don't think the wages paid would be overlooked between yon. Mr Shera said it was competent for the Board now to cite any o-wners of other vessels upon application by any party to the dispute. The Chairman said they might be joined in the dispute at this stage. Mr Ranson : Then we do apply to have them joined, sir. Mr Belcher took exception to the portion of the clause handed in by Mr Ranson, which made the agreement of no effect if those other boats were not joined. He thought it absolutely unfair that any condition of that sort should be attached to the agreement. If the Board fixed terms that "should be sufficient. If the Union went the length of bringing a certain firm before the Board upon receiving notice that should be sufficient.

The Chairman said the position was simple enough. The ship owner gave notice to. the Union whereupon action would be taken, and the Board dealt with the case. If the Union in good faith took proceedings and the Board failed to bring these vessels under the agreement, the question was whether Mr lianson would consider it fair to break up the whole agreement ?

Mr Ranson said he would leave it to the Board, but pointed out that these boats came into competition with those bound to pay higher rates. He asked to have these oil engines included because he thought wages paid on such vessels should be regulated the same as on steamers. The Chairman said that it was possible that the Board might not bring in a regulation regarding oil engines that would be satisfactory to steamship owners. Mr Hanson : 1 don't think the Company would object. We don't think all the men should be paid alike, but the Union says that the men in our tenders should be paid the same as those in big steamers. We do not think so. Chairman : If all these steamers of which we have been provided with a list and some were dismissed, Mr Ranson would consider he was freed from the agreement. Mr Ranson : That is so, sir. Mr Belcher: That is unfair, because we cannot control the finding of the Board. If the Board did not see the same as the Union in the matter that was no reason why the agreement should be broken. Mr Niceol said that all engine vessels to his mind should pay the same rates of wages as those fixed for steamers, as they were engaged in the same trade. Mr Belcher said he was prepared to leave the whole matter to the Board. He could not accept the clause as it stood. If the words "fail to compel" were deleted iti would be better. Mr Ranson agreed to these words being struck out. Chairman : Then the only question is when sb all the agreement be signed ? Were they prepared to consent to sign this agreement at once, knowing that all the other boats will be proceeded with. Mr Ranson : we prefer that the alteration in the rate of wages should all commence at the same time. Chairman : If they refuse to come in, we can send them to the Court of Arbitration. Either party to the dispute can take it to the Court. It would be a much better thing for the agreement to be signed right away. Mr Ranson said they were willing to sign on condition the increased pay did not commence until the other boats had been brought in. Mr Belcher thought the agreement should be signed at once, and the increase of wages to take place from the first of December. He objected to the matter lying over until the Arbitration Court had settled the case. He did not want the thing indefinitely hung up because the men were losing' the increase of pay that employers had said they were willing to have given had the men asked for it. Mr Niceol thought it would be unfair for them to be compelled to pay increased wages while the other vessels were free. Personally he should be inclined to withhold his agreement until the other vessels had been brought in. After some further discussion Mr Ranson formally asked-that the owners of the Admiral, Hercules, Medora, Waiapu, Aotea, and Oban be joined in these proceedings. The Clerk of Awards noted the names, and it was agreed to deal with oil engine vessels next Friday. STATEMENT BY MR ALISON. When the Board resumed this afternoon the Chairman said they were prepared to hear the result of the Conference amongst the employers interested in the second order of reference. Mr Alison, representing the Clevedon Company, said he regretted that after most careful consideration, the Company he represented have definitely decided that it cannot accede to the demands that ;it shall pay the same rates, and agree ', to the same conditions as those already arranged under; the Board of Conciliation in the -case-.. of the Northern Steamship Company and others. He spoke at.some length, urging that there was no dispute between the parties cited and their employees. Fair wages were paitl and that it M- as not equitable to expect that employees on small river steamers should be paid at the same rate as men on large steamers running outside. Mr Hosking said that the Chairman of his Company said he would prefer to lay up the Weka rather than pay wages that meant loss. Mr Parker said he had agreed with Mr Hosking and Mr Alison to decline the terms. "" He found it would be better to put up with the alternative rather than run his boats at a loss. He had to compete with scows in bringing logs to the mills.

Mr Belcher said he wished it to be distinctly understood that it was owing to pressure from other shipowners that these proceedings had been taken. He did not think it would make mnch difference to these firms if they signed the agreement. The Chairman said that application had been made to bring in all other vessels. The Board would notify them when it was prepared to announce its finding in this case.