SEAMEN'S AWARD.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18015, 6 March 1924, Page 16

SEAMEN'S AWARD.

THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE.

j OWNERS SEEK ABOLITION. PEHSS ASSOCi.VTIOS TELEGRAM., I I WELLINGTON'. March 5. i Tr.e seamen's was commences '■ before the Arbitration Court this moin- ! ing. The case will probably last several I days. ' His Honour said ihitt it was not pro- ' poied to take evidence m other centres. ! but t~> regard the sitting a.s a 1 Dominion hearing. Opening the case i->r tl:e employers, Mr \V. G. Smith said that the ship- ; owners were very disappointed with ■ the present award. They had hoped for : much greater relief by the Court from the intolerable burdens imposed on ilicm l.v th-o union. and in particular liv the" last industrial agreement. Tn its wisdom, the Court last year ignored ! the employers' proposals. A strong pro- ! test against the continued inclusion of ( the preference clause in the award ; was entered by -Mr Smith. The profer- ' ence clause, he maintained, had ceased j to operate as from the commencement ;of the last maritime strike. He sub- ; initted that the Union had forfeited all claim (if it ever had any) to a renewal jof preference, and that the Court ! should not consider for one moment the > granting of any form of preference. ! To do so would not only be a grave injustice to the employers, who had to | carry on their business as best they could during the prolonged strike ! against the award of the Court, but | would be tantamount to giving ! all the unions to understand that not- | withstanding how they may striko, or i flout awards of the Court, they would j still be gr.tnted the most precious I gift that the Court could l>e6tow upon them, and that was preference. If I preference was granted the result would j be chaos, as all the unions would' know that they could ignore their awards I with impunity and still retain that | complete control of the industry which preference gave them. Another result of the granting of preference would be the hounding out of the ships of those men -who assisted to keep shipping 'transport going during the strike. The recent maritime trouble, it was claimed, w-as entirely instigated and directed by the> union, and in support of this it was claimed that the following decision was made by the union "Mr Young read the decision of the Executive Council, that the men werie all to give i>4. hours' notice, and leave at the port at which they were entitled to leave, to remain out until November 20th, when they are to sign on under the new award without question. The Executive Council will meet again on November 2-oth, when the date on which the men a.re again to give notice will be decided. This in and out strike is to be. continued until October 1923, when the award expires." Mr Young: "I tun to make it clear to you that such a statement dees not a.ppear in the minutes' of any meeting of the Seamen's Union. Those words never at smy time passed my lips. I exceedingly regret that I should be thus misrepresented in this matter by the other side. I know that lam bad enough, bait'.l never uttered those words. I do. not . say I would not do so, but actually I did not." The position was, He said,, tha£ this statement had been telegraphed fn>m Auckland thfough the Press Association, and attributed to him. He asked that Mr Smith should disclose the source of his information.

Mr Smith: I object.to disclose it to Mr Young, but I will give it to the Court

His Honour: I do not see how the disclosing, of the source of the -information will help us in . any way unless the man is brought here to give evidence on oath and.submits to cross-examina-tion. ■ - Mr Smith: The man was >at the meeting. - * His Honour : So was Mr. Young. Mr Young: lam prepared to submit the "minutes of the meeting in support of my denial. His Honour: I do not think that would hel;> us either. These things never get into the books. I believe you to be too fly, Mr Young, to have allowed euch, an entry, to get into the minutes, even if the statement had been made. Therefore, Mr Smith, I do not think you are' justified in asking the Court to lay much stress on such <i statement as you have madie unsupported by proper legal proof. - Mr Smith: That puts us in the position of never'being able to eet rid of this' old man of tne sea, tne preference clause, because although we may know quite well that the Union is implicated in hold-ups, we cannot produce the necessary legal proof. A continuance of the provisions relating to stop-work meetings was strongly opposed by Mr Smith. The holding of those meetings not only caused delay and therefore serious loss, but the principle- was, he submitted;quite wrong. . Dealing with the question of wages, Mr Smith said that New Zealand shipowners were at very serious disadvantage as .compared with'those of such countries as Great Britain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, etc., where wages were very much lower than here. German ships had reentered the Australian, and New Zealand trade some time ago, and the wages of their crews at the present rate of exchange amounted only to about 5s per month. Norwegian rates were now 173 kr. for A.B.'s, and 175 kr. for firemen, which, at the exchange of 18.159 kr. per £ wa3 £9 8s 4d_ for A.B.'s and £9 13s lOd for firemen. 'Even at the present low rale of exchange, U.S.A; rates were still substantially cheaper than New Zealand rates. The Union Company had to compete in. the world market against large numbers of very cheaply-run ships of all , nationalities. including vessels owned bv Colonial Governments, such as Canada, ships which paid no taxes to th'eir own Government or to the Imperial Government, whereas slipping companies were subjected to heavy taxation.. Unless something was done to enable New Zealand ships to compete on more level terms with those outside vessels, there could bg only one end, and that was that New Zealand ships would be driven out of those trades with consequent loss of employment _to New Zealand seapien. As regards overtime, the empfoyers li.-sd made a proportionate reduction in this to that made in wages. In support of the employers' claim that seamen should submit "themselves to meaical examination when applying for employment, evidence was given by !>r. E. W. Giesen, who said that he favoured the proposal very strongly. Where men were required to live in such close association with each other for such long periods, it was very de- i sirable that they should be all in a reasonably sound condition of health both for their own sakes, and for those with whom they worked. It would be for the benefit of the employers, because it would prevent a great loss through inefficiency.

Cross-examined by Mr Young, Dr. Giesen said that h© always advocated medical examination not only for seatien, but for all workers. It would prevent a tremendous amount ,of inefficiency if the workers of the country were classified into groups according to their physical condition. Evidence was also given in srapport of the proposed clause bv Dr. Luke.