The Press FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1970. The Wainui Dispute

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32233, 27 February 1970, Page 12

The Press FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1970. The Wainui Dispute

Settlement of the dispute over the manning of the Wainui is so long overdue that neither the Govern ment nor the Union Steam Ship Company shoulc delay any longer taking firm action to get the shif to sea. The company seized the initiative recently when the master of the Wainui engaged ar engine-room crew. This action ensured that the ship was manned: but the engineers refuse to take the ship to sea. It is impossible for any of the parties tc emerge from the Wainui fiasco with much credit: and only discredit will be gained by further delay. It would be best if the ship sailed and points of principle were left to be settied in an atmosphere free of the pressure and confusion arising from the hold-up. There is undoubtedly much force in the arguments of the engineers that the selection of a suitable crew is important to the safe and harmonious management of a ship, especially a ship on a long voyage. But the master of the Wainui is ultimately responsible for these matters: and he has already made his decision on the manning of the ship. By forcing the argument about the principle to its bitter conclusion the engineers are not strengthening their position. Nothing has been solved by the intransigence of the seamen or of the engineers; and nothing is likely to be resolved if the engineers continue their refusal to move the ship. Whatever the merits of the views held by the engineers it must now be quite clear that, while they might object to the action of the master, it is an action for which they are not required to take responsibility: they are answerable to the master if they fail to perform their duties. Once again it seems that a party to the dispute has failed to seize an opportunity to end it without loss of face. Although the Minister of Labour (Mr Marshall) says that this is not a strike and that he has no legal power to force a settlement, it is a situation which comes well within the definition of a strike in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Although that act is not applicable to this dispute there is ample provision in the Shipping and Seamen Act for offences against discipline. Short of enforcing these provisions it would be possible to require a fresh hearing of the dispute before a marine superintendent. That at least, would clarify the ruling given at a previous hearing before the superintendent at Auckland and establish the wisdom, or otherwise, of the master’s decision. As the position has changed since the earlier hearing, a new hearing would appear to be in order. A superintendent’s ruling on a dispute is final and binding on each party.