MANNING OF SHIPS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17408, 20 March 1922, Page 8

MANNING OF SHIPS.

UNION INTERFERENCE

GOVERNMENT TO ASSERT ITS AUTHORITY.

(By Cable—Press Association—Ccpyri?ht.) (Australian and K.2. Cablo Association.)

MELBOURNE, March 18

The Federal Cabinet has determined to assert its authority regarding the ship-manning dispute. On arrival of tlhe Hobson Bny in Australia, it will insist that the captain shall have absolute control of the selection of a crew. If the union dictates, then tho vessel is to be thrown idle.

There has been serious trouble in Australia recently over the refusal of the Seamen's Union to permit members of the British Union to sail in some of tho Commonwealth Government liners on tlhe return trio to England, because they were not members of the Australian Union. In one case (that of the More ton Bay) it was stated that the crew approved this principle, and voted in favour of calling out the crew and substituting an Australian one. Later, however, in connexion with tlio Largs liny, it appeared that the Australian Union refused to admit tlio British sailors to the union, and an indignant protest wan made by Mr Havelock Wilson, secretary of the Britisih Sailors' Union. The action of the Australian Union was indignantly commented on recently by Captain L: wrenc?, secretary of the Merchant £erv:ce Gui'd. 'lf tho Commonwealth Government Line fails because of chaos brought about by union 9, and the ships are acquired by the combine, then not one Australian will be employed under Australian conditions," he said. "The Prime Min : eter has my sincere sympathy. Every word uttered by 'him regarding the Largs Bay chaos is true. The grent principles on which the Commonwealth _ Lino was founded are being jeopardised.

"Tho line must be destroyed when, once it shows a big financial loss, such ao woidd arise out of chnotie management. And where will Australian unionists -be then? In the Commonwealth, line of steamers w© have, say, 50 vessels employing about 100 men each. Thus there arc 5003 men working on Australian conditions. That in one or two hundred cases, in order to meet with ordinary facilities and convenience of securing crews, money should be paid to men not domicled in-Australia seems to me a small matter where the existence of the other 4800 or more is concerned.

"It is not in tho interest of our own unemployed tlhat we should risk overloading; our market with between 4000 and 5000 men who are now employed in this branch of industry. If the Commonwealth Government Line passed out of existence, that is what would happen. A note of warning should bo sounded. If the ships of the line went into the hands of the British flipping combine there is nothing more certain than that not one Australian or worker under Australian conditions would bo found working in tho oversea shipping trade. "'lf the Commonwealth Line fails, there is no possible hope that private enterprise would run a, sing'© vessel under Australian conditions in tho overseas trade. As to tho_ change of policy sTmvwn by the Australian unions in forcing men to leave their jobs, there is no doubt that this arises solely out of the overstocked labour market in Australia.. Everyone must have the greatest sympathy with the workless seamen now in our Australian cities, but the policy_ recently adopted by the maritime unions is a starting departure. Practically the whole of the vesaeis enraged in the Australian coastal trade have been built in England and been brouplht out here by British crews. On arrival their contract has ended, but the maritime unions have always observed the open door to these men, and they have been free to hold their job or to seek work elsewhere. before have they said to the men willing to join the union, 'You oannot work where you like.' The two great principles on which the line was founded—to free Australian producers and consumers from the octopus of tho shipping combine, and to introduce' seamen on Australian conditions into tho overseas carrying trade —should not be endangered."