ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 20, 18 October 1917, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

THE SHIPPING TROUBLE

AGREEMENT INTERPRETED

.Tho .Arbitration Court yesterday delivered judgment on cortain questions submitted for its consideration, in connection with tho agreement made in the dispute tatu-cuniho Federated Seamen's Union and the New Zealand Shipowners federation.

The questions, and tho answers given by the Court to them, were:— Question A: Clauee 9—(a) At sea the hours of labour for .deck-hands should not be more than eight iu a day, to be worked as may be required by tho employer, (b) At sen tho hours of labour for stokehold and engineroom hands should bo not more than eight in a day, to be worked aa may bo required by tho employer (a day means from midnight till midnight). Question: Has tho employer thought at sea to work seamen any eight Lours in any day?

Ilcply: "The answer lo this question is in the affirmative. It seems clear that the employer lias such a right under the agreement. Tho object of the clause in question apparently was to limit (ho hours of working of the scainoa to fijfht hours per day, while leaving the iullest discretion lo tho employer us io when tho hours should bo worked. Tho discretion must, of courso, bo exercised reasonably, and so that tho seaman is allowed proper intervals for rest ond meals, except in'oases of emergency." Question B: Clause 9—(d) When a vessel arrives in port and leaves again the same day, or when she arrives and leaves within eight hours between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m., .tho ship may, at the option of the master, bo treated as at sea. Question: When a vessel arrives in port and leaves again the samo day, or whou a vessel arrives and leaves within eight hours between S p.m. and 7 a.m., and is treated "as at sea," and the seamen havo performed, say, two hours' work befcre arrival in port, and will be required lo perform two hours' duty after departm-i-, can tho balance of tho eight hours to be worked in port be worked at any time (without payment of overtime) as may be required by tho master, and as provided in clause 9 (a) and (bj? Reply: "In the circumstances slated, the ship being treated a.s 'at sea/ it follows from clause 9. (a).and (b) that the balanco of tho eight hours must be worked as required by tho master in accordance with our reply..to Question A." Question C:, Clause 11—<b) The hours of labour in -port for deck, engine-room, and stokehold hands should be between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., except that on days of departure from a port tha cJiitf. engineers may sot watches three, hours l>cforo the time fixed for the departure of the vessel. Question: When a vessel arrives in port, and a seaman has worked, say <: four hours at sea before arrivil, can the balance of. tho eight hours be worked at any time between 7 a.m. and.s p.m. (me-il hour excluded), as may be required by tho master? Keply: "In tho circumstances stated, the balance of tho -eight lours can be worked at any time between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. (meal hours' exluded) as may bo required by tho omployor. Wo understand that the union claims thut the eight hours should be completed, immediately after tho arrival .'of tie. vessel in port, but' we can see nothing in the agreement to.justify this contention. ....Question D: .-Clause 18—The meal hour allowed- in port shall bo for breakfast, any. ono. hour between 7.3,111'. and !>.a:m.; for dinner, any ono hour between 13 n6oii.and.2.p.m.; for'.lea,.if working overtime, any ono hour between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., and if work is to be continued after 11 ip.inV ono hour for supper between 11 P'*n. and' 1 a.m. Seamen should not bo under any objuration to curtail any meal-time even on tho terms of payment for overtime." Question: Whcro a vessel (such as is the <yisc regularly- with- tho «.6. .Pateena) .has to sail at 12.15 p.m., can the master send some of the mej to dinner at noon and the rest of tIV6 men. .at t. .p.m., or. can all the mon hi> required to Uinnor after the departul'O of tho shipi' Keply: "Wo see no reason why in such cases as stated part of the mon should not bo sent to dinner at noon, and the rest of the men at 1 p.m. We have nofi sufficient information boforo us as to the bearing of tho latter ipart of tho question, and wo, therefore, decline to answer it."'

Tho judgment proceeds: "It must be understood that tho above answers are not binding upon tho Court in tho event of any questions arising hereafter for desision in any proceedings formally before tho Court. Wβ think it necessary to make fjus. reservation aa we have not had tho benefit of any argument from the workers' point of view."

Question E: The Court:is further requested to decide- if,'"where tlio,manning scalo of the Shipping and Seamen.Act allows vessels to carry less' than six abla seamen, it is essential to the safoty of such vessels that two-deck hands should be employed on the deck at the stmo time in addition h> tho officer in-charge. ■ Eeply. "With regnrd to this question, we think it open to doubt whether we Live any jurisdiction to deal with this matter. Aβ, however, the members of tho Court have boon appointed as a commission to inquiro under Section 31 of the Regulation of Trade and Commerce Act, we have tho right to inquire and report as to the necessity or advisability of tho exorciso by the Governor of the power conferred upon him under Section 25 of the Act, of modifying the provisions of tho industrial agreement under consideration, and we think this is sufficient to justify us in making the following observations: There ie nothing in tho agreement or in the Shipping and Seamen Act requiring that there should be two men in a watch in addition to the officor in charge. The question, however, is whether' or not, in. order to secure the safe navigation of small coastal vessels, such', a provision is necessary. . . . In face of tho evidence before us, and of a (statement. made by Mr. Young, secretary of tho union, we cannot believe that the union lias any substantial ground for its claim that Here should lie lit least two men in a waicJi at sea in addition to tho officer on Iho bridge. Owing to the failure of tho union to attend at the hearing, and to submit any evidence or arguments for our consideration, we have been compelled to base our conclusions on the evidence' and arguments submitted by the employers only; but, -basing our judgment on the material before us, we have no hesitation in stating that m our opinion it is not essential-, m ord«r to ensure safe navigation of the vessels in question, and the consequent seouniy ot the passengers rind crews on such *es-. eels that tlio two deck hands should bo employed on deck at the same time, in addition to the officer in charge. At tho hearing, the bench was onciinied bv Mr. Justico Stringer, In , . W. Scotl,andJCr:-,r. A. M'Cullough The labour Department was represented by Mr G H. Lightfoot, Inspector of Awards, and the shipowners by sfr. T. S. Wcston.