MARINE ENGINEERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 276, 20 November 1926, Page 15

MARINE ENGINEERS.

V DISPUTE BEFORE COURT. y p UNION MEMBERSHIP OPPOSED. A dispute between marine engineers r and shore engineers was heard in the 1 Arbitration Court this morning. It I arose out of the opposition of the Amal- j gam a ted Engineering Union to the inclusion in the new award of clauses ] relating to the employment of members j of the Marine Engineers' Institute. j At the outset, Mr. Justice Frazer said I ' he did not think the Court would ever 11 seek to deprive a marine engineer of i work on his own ship while the ship ' was out of commission. Mr. Sommerville, on behalf of the In- ■ stitute, submitted that marine engineers were more competent to do work on board ships than were shore engineers. Mr. Justice Frazer thought the ques- , tion should be dealt with from the point . of view that some shore men were com- j petent. It looked as though the shore engineers wanted to compel the marine engineers working ashore to pay the protective fee of the union, said Mr. Sommerville. However, the institute did not want the marine engineer to have . to join the union simply because he hap- , peneel to be ashore for a time. The marine engineer had better pay and conditions than the shore engineer, and therefore should not be forced to belong to a union which had obtained no benefits for him. Engineering work aboard ship was the special prerogative of the marine engineer. On behalf of the Union Steamship Co., Mr. N. G. Smith said it had always been the practice of shipping companies throughout the world to employ ships' engineers. Their employment had not only been allowed for many years past under the awards for the Amalgamated Engineering Union, but it was provided for in the Marine Engineers' Award itself, and the union could not deprive the Engineers' Institute of its rights under that award. Sea-going engineers were far more competent to do overhauling work on ships than was the average shore" engineer. This was clearly proved by the fact that shipowners were willing to pay the marine engineers for such work at higher rates. If the Court was to grant the union's demand, nd cut out tbe members of the institute, then the provisions of the marine engineers' award would be materially affected in regard to the employment of sea-going engineers when their vessels were out of commission ,and undergoing repairs. It was most important, for the sake of public safety, that repair work on ships should be done thoroughly, by skilled engineers acquainted with needs and circumstances. Mr. Barter, for the union, took exception to the fact that the efficiency of the shore engineers had been contrasted adversely with that of the marine engineers. It was contrary to fact that shore engineers were inferior. The men whom the marine engineers affected to despise were the very men who trained marine apprentices. The union held that a marine engineer who had been signed off. and who went to work in shore shops, should be a member of the union. The institute had taken up the attitude that engineers who went to sea must join the institute, but they refused to allow institute members ashore to belong to the union. Mr. Barter said lie had never heard of suck v ridiculous proposal in any part of the world. Decision was deferred.