THE PAINTING OF SHIPS

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21116, 17 March 1934, Page 14

THE PAINTING OF SHIPS

♦ DISPUTE BETWEEN TRADES UNIONS CASE IN ARBITRATION COI'RT A disagreement between two trades unions regarding the employment of skilled painters or casual waterside workers to chip and paint certain parts of ships was mentioned in the Arbitration Court yesterday during the hearing of the dispute between the Master Painters' Federation and the Painters' Union. Mr Justice Frazer presided, and with him were Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative) and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees' representative). Mr D. I. Macdonald appeared Jor the Master Painters' and Decorators' Association of New Zealand, and Mr F. C. Cornwell for the New Zealand Painters' and Decorators' Industrial Association of Workers. Mr Macdonald had previously explained that beyond desiring that the provisions relating to ship work should be included in the award, and that those provisions in respect of hours of work and rates of pay should be wherever possible similar to the other conditions of the award, his federation did not intend to argue the matter. Mr G. 11. Norman appeared for the Union Steam Ship Company and the Wellington Patent Slip Company; and Mr N. Campbell and Mr J. Roberts represented the Waterside Workers' Federation. In answer to a question by the court, Mr Cornwell said that theMaster Painters' Federation and the employees desired the old award, with the general alterations made by the court. Mr Norman said that the Union Company desired an entirely new award, as the company employed many tradesmen, and it wanted to bring them all into line. Mr Roberts said that it was the desire of the waterside workers to protect the casual labour that was engaged in the chipping, cleaning, and painting of ships. Mr Norman said that since the painters' award went out of existence painters had been employed by the Union Company and the Patent Slip Company at the rate of Is lid an hour for skilled work and Is lOd for unskilled work and no difficulty had been experienced. The rates were similar to those paid to other tr .teles. He therefore urged the court not to add the two companies to the parties. However, should the court be against that, he asked that they should be exempted from the general provisions of the award and special [provisions inserted. It was of the greatest importance that the present position should continue under I which all tradesmen were working on the same conditions and at the same rates of pay, except carpenters and shipwrights, who always received a higher* rate than other skilled tradesmen.

In Ihe past, he said, the court had always limited the award to skilled painters' work only, and ho submitted that the court should not alter the policy it had adopted in previous awards. The union was, in eiioct. asking the court to overrule an industrial agreement, dated June 21, 1933, between the employers and the Waterside Workers' Federation covering rough painting and other ship work, under which the rate of pay was fixed at Is lOd an hour. He asked that the preference clause should not applv to shipwork other than skilled painters' work. That was very important, as there was no reason why the employers should be tied down always to employ painters to do work which was really labourers' work. Mr Comwell stated that since 1(101, genera! painting on ships had been done by journeymen painters, but provision was made in waterside workers' awards for certain work, such as chipping, cleaning, scrubbing, and painting. Me claimed that no reason existed, after a period of 33 years as a party to the painters' award, why anv ditt'orence should be made between the Union Company and the master painters. At Auckland all ship painting, cleaning, chipping, and scrubbing had been done by painters, and it was asked that the conditions which had operated during the last 30 years should be incorporated in the present award. IVIr Roberts said the waterside workers objected to skilled painters being employed to do work which v as not recognised as skilled work in any part of the world. He claimed that skilled painters did r.ot perform all the work, but that, ether men were employed to do other work. In some cases in Auckland men were paid as low as Is 3d an hour. He asked the court to allow the painters to do their own skilled work, as defined by the parties themselves. The waterside workers would undertake the other work, and he thought that if the painters were in any way reasonable they would find that the waterside workers would not encroach on their work. Casual waterside workers were employed on verv short hours, and unless they could obtain other work their' wage:; would have to be materially increased. He regretted having to come to court in that case because i he thought the matter should have [been settled by the trades unions j concerned. [ Mr N. Campbell said that much of the painting work on ships was clone by the seamen while the vessel was in port. Rarely, except in the cases of passenger vessels, were they painted by skilled painters. His Honour intimated that the court would consider the matter, but would not make an award before hearing applications lor exemption in other centres.