ARBITRATION COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 252, 22 October 1907, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Sim and Messrs. R, . .* Slator,. and S. Brown.) . "The sittings of the Arbitration Court were resumed this morning. COOKS' AND STEWARDS' DISPUTE.: i .The hearing of this dispute,: which' was adjou.i-nedfr.om. yesterday, was resumed this morning;- -'' ! ■ i - f •'/■• ; ■,Mr. Scott appeared for "the respondents, and the workers were represented by Mr. Jones. ■ ■ ,' ' 'In "opposing Mr. Scott's contention, that the : proceedings were irregular, Mr. Jones called evidence, to show ; thai at the-time a meeting was held notification of the meeting Lad been 'posted to .each of the 26 mcniberß. . All the members in port received due notification.. There were ]6 present at, the'meeting at the start, and 20 at the finish. ; Mr. Scott submitted that one day's notice of a meeting of such importance was not reasonable in an important matter. lil;e that. There >vei> only 26 men in the uuion,, whereas something like 156 men. were concerned. Some of the 26 men had not received notice of the meeting in proper time. Mr. S-cptt handed in a petition signed by eighteen chief stewards of the Northern Steamship Company, expressing, satisfaction with their-present conditions, and asking to be exempted from any award which might be made. The Court admitted tbat the notice of the meeting, was very short, but heM that' the evidence adduced did not disclose, tli.it members did not receive notice of the meeting. It ; was-there-fore decided to go on with the case. . ;

The main point at issue is the question of wages. The men's demands stipulated.! for the following monthly ; steward, £12; chief, cook, £ 12; ship's cook, £7; ■' second j steward, £7; pantryman, £6; baker, '£ 8; bedroom fcteward, £ 5 10/; saloon ; waiters, £5 10/; butchers, £5; fore cabin steward, £6;, assistant pantryman, £4; stewardess, £5; cadets, £2 10/; second cooks, £7; third cooks,-£4;-cook and. steward, £12; assistant stewards and cooks: on cargo steamers, £ 5 10/. The demands further provide for an eighthour day in port, and 10J hours at sea. Holidays, to be paid for if. worked, whether at sea or in port. Overtime to be paid for at 1/3 per jropr," • The usual preference clause is ajsb included.

The masters-' counter proposals provide for differential rates according to the class of vessel. Employees on class A boats to receive the same rate as provided in tie , award governing i the Union S.S. Company, dated May 22nd, 1907. For class B boats the .wages set. down are for" second stewards £-5 10/----per month; chief cook, £10; stewards' assistants, forecabin stewards, pantrymen, cooks' assistants, and stewardesses, £4; youths, £2. For class C boats, £4 a month for stewards' assistants, £8 for cooke, £3 for stewardesses, and £2 for youths; no stewards to be recognised unless there are three or more stewards or stewards' assistants. The counter proposals provide for working hours in port from (3 a.m. to 7 p.m., and when at sea the hours to be curtailed as far as is reasonably consistent with due regard to the comfort and convenience of passengers and crew,''and the efficient upkeep of the snips. Overtime' rates are suggested as follows:—Persons in re-; ceipt of £5 or more a month, 1/- an b.our; over £3 and under £5, 9d; and those in receipt of lees than £3i'6d an hour. The proposals also provide for ho discrimination betwen unionists and nonunionists.

Gabriel Roelyn Boss, chief steward of the Ngapiihi, said that it would not be to the advantage of the chief stewards to be brought into the award. They would be no better off under the.award. ; No coercion had been used in obtaining signatures to the petition.

Other chief stewards also gave similar evidence, stating that iinder an award they would be worse off.

Mr. Jones objected to the exemption of chief stewards. They were badly paid, he declared, and told a very different tale outside of-the Court. :....-•,

The men's demands were supported by a number of witnesses.

In reply to Mr. Scott, the president of the Union, Mi - . Sainsbury, said the employers' proposals had never been submitted to him. iMvmy of the clauses were new to him. Had those proposals been before _lhem they would certainly have been discussed and given consideration to. I Mr. Jones interjected that the proposals were not accepted because they only applied to two or three people, to which. Mr. Scott retorted "That's, not tr,ue, Mr. Jones, and you know it's not true."

In opening the case for the respondents, Mr. Scott said the claim of the men was original. They w er e asking to be put on precisely the same footing as men on ocean-going vessels. The companies cited all rah short trips, and were almost-always under shelter. .There was no comparison between their boats end the ocean-going vessels. The counter proposals, he claimed, were very liberal.

(Proceeding.)