SEAMEN'S DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 82, 6 April 1922, Page 5

SEAMEN'S DISPUTE.

REFERRED TO ARBITRATION. ABORTIVE CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS. QUESTION OF PROCEDURE. The dispute filed by the Northern Steamship Co., Ltd., Richardson and Co., Ltd., Jas. Smith Co., Ltd., and the Union Steam Ship Co., Ltd., aguinet the Federated Seamen's Union of New Zealand, Wellington, and the Auckland Federated Seamen's Union, Auckland, came before the Conciliation Council this morning. The assessors for the shipowners were Captain R. C. Hammond and Messrs. D. Carter and T. R. Anderson, and for the Seamen's Union Messrs. W. T. Young and W. Clarke, Wellington, and T. F. Anderson, Auckland.

The Commissioner, Mr. T. Harle Giles, presided, and in opening the proceedings said that the council had before it the shipowners , claims and the union's counter proposals. In looking through these he found a wide disparity existing in practically all the points at issue. The dispute had already been heard before a Conciliation Council in Wellington, and no settlement had been reached except upon one machinery clause, namely payment of wages. The dispute covered the whole of the Dominion, and the claims and counter-proposals were identical in the chief centres. It seemed to him that it would be almost a waste of time in go over the ground again which had already bepi dealt with in Wellington.

Captain Hammond, on behalf of the shipowners, pointed out that as their claims were the same as those discussed in Wellington, no useful purpose could be served in re-considering them.

The Commissioner suggested that the council go into committee to consider the whole matter, and remarked that the last 13 years this course had been adopted unless both sides desired discussion in open chamber.

On putting the question to the assessors for the shipowners they declared in favour of going into committee, but Mr. W. T. Young, general secretary of the Federated Seamen's Union, objected to the discussion of the dispute being heard in camera, and demanded publicity of the whole proceedings.

The Commissioner, however, said that he was not prepared to deviate from the custom which had been established during his period of office. He had always found committee work the most satisfactory, as it enabled both skies to make suggestions and proposals which if not agreed to ended at the council table. Opportunity would be afforded to the union to call "videnee before the Arbitration Court, when full publicity would be obtained.

The union assessors refused to discus? the proposals and counter-proposals in committee, and the Commissioner referred the dispute to the Arbitration Court.