UNION COMPANY STEAMERS

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 270, 10 August 1922, Page 4

UNION COMPANY STEAMERS

* —; ENGINEERS’ WORK & WAGES ARBITRATION COURT ■ ’ - HEARS DISPUTE CLAIMS AND COUNTERPROPOSALS The hearing of the dispute between the Union Steam Ship Company and the Engineers’ Institute commenced at the Arbitration Court yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer and Messrs. W. Scott and' M. J. Reardon (assessors). Air. AV. G, Smith appeared for the tympany, and Mr. T It. Wallace (secMs.tary of the Marine Engineers’ Institute), Mr. D. A. Sturrock (secretary of the Auckland branch of the institute), and Captain F. A. Macindoe (/secretary of the Merchant Service Guild) for the engineers. Mr.,B. L. Hammond _ represented twenty-six coastal shipping companies, including ' the Anchor Company, ''and the Richardson land Canterbury Companies, which the institute apjilied to have joined to the diiputo as parties. The Union Company was the applicant in the case, and. counter-pro-posals were filed by the instittue. After the Court had decided that

the coastal companies could not be included in the award (as reported under separate heading) the addresses were delivered. Case for the Company. Mr. Smith contended that the coun ' ter-proposals filed by the Engineers Institute, which involved drastic al derations in the conditions existing, could not be taken into consideration by the Court as counter-proposals, but only by means of a cross-citation, a course of action which the respondents had failed to adopt, He explained that the dispute first came before the Court in 1913, and the award made remained in force until 1916, when a further award was made. Then an agreement was made in 1919, which was still current. The increases then given were largely based on increases given to the Merchant Service Guild in 1919, as dictated by it in the face or a polite intimation of a strike. The total increase of wages, etc., over prewar was 70.8 per cent., and there was ' justification now for. a substantial reduction, yet the company was only W»ldng for a 20 per, cent, reduction on the rates fixed in 1919, with the , £3 bonus addeST. The wages on United l • Kingdom vessels from which the Union Co. had to face keen competition, had to*-be reduced by £5 10s. per month for chief engineers, £3 10s. for second engineers, £6 10s. for third engineers, / £7 for fourth engineers and -juniors under the grade of fourth, or taking the junior engineer as the base, a reduction of 86.8 per cent. On United States’ vessels, second engineers had ' since August, 1920, been reduced by fyom 66 to 92 dollars a month, third engineers by 62 io-92 dollars, fourth engineers by 54 to 75 dollars, juniors by 35 io 45 dollars. The institute was Asking for an increase over existing rates ranging from 20 to 32 per cent., far beyond the demands of the masters and officers. The only point at issue in connection with hours was the exclusion of chief engineers. . The employers offered the strongest objections io the fixing of definite hours for the payment of overtime to cliief engineers, as they were in entire control of the engine department, The ejattse about “ship-keeping” was on Similar lines to that in th s award of

1913. Its effect was to allow tints off in lieu of cash payments .for shipkeeping, which was very light -work He contended that “home ports’ should be confined to tho main ports. In. rggard to time off, the employers <proposal was in the main a return to a corresponding clause in the awards „of 1913-16, except that the time was increased from one day to two, and was largely based .on tho Australian award. The employers objected entirely to the principle that sea-going workers were to. be regarded; as shore Workers, and given time off on the assumption that the ‘whole of the 52 (■Sundays and eight Jpnbl’io holidays Were spent at eea. The annual leave <sf fourteen days and the two days’ holiday per month was very generous ansation for any Sundays and y« spent at sea.. In regard to out of commission, the pro-, poeal was, in the main, a return to the corresponding clause in the 191316 awards,, except for a third increase. It was quite unreasonable • that ehi gineers working as fitters on a vessel oft articles, under overhaul or repair for an extended period, should be paid rates much in excess of those payable to shore fitters, especially as many of the junior engineers would only recently have completed their apprenticeship. The strongest possible opposition was offered to the counter-proposal that additional engineers should be employed if frozen cargo was carried. Very little frozen cargo was carried in the Union Company’s ships. The counter-pro-posal for tropical allowance was strongly opposed, as well as the inclusion of tugs in tho award. He urged the Court to adopt the rates and conditions asked for by the employers, which were not only reasonable and just in every way to the workers, but more than reasonable. .. Mr; J. Smith, superintending engineer of tho U.S.S. Co., gave evidence in support of the claims. "Alterations In Hard-Won Conditions.” Alp. Wallace pointed out that this was the first of a series of cases affecting the whole of the shipping industry. He regretted, in the interests of both parties, that a round-table conference or a Council of Conciliation had not been able to arrive at a settlement which would m'ore likely give permanent satisfaction than any decision of the Court. The existing agreement was arrived at by mutual arrangement, and it was ojily natural that they should resist any attempt to bring buck the bod old time's. The wages existing were agreed to in June, 1919, and since then £2 per month had been added in bonuses, without application to the Court. Enormous pro-fits had been, made by the Union Company, but increases granted were pimply because of the higher cost of living. Ho was convinced that the training and responsibilities of engineers had never been paid for with salaries, Ihe other side Was not only asking, for large decreases in salaries, but also for alterations in hard-won conditions which would mean a monetary saving to them and a hardship to the men.' He submitted that the proper method of determining the nominal horse-power of internal combustion engines was that adopted by Lloyds. In regard to the hours of chief engineers, since it had been agreed to exclude them their hours had. considerably increased, and there was. no conceivable reason why they should not be paid for overtime. The question of “the principal port” was unfair —thoro were nine chief ports mentioned in the existing award. Before tho provision for extra payment for shipkeoping was made, there was a great deal more of it than at present. The claim for emergency work was unfair, as it embraced almost any work, and was a retrograde step. They opposed clerical work being imposed on a man outside his ordinary working hours.' There was an attemnt to denrive engineers of extra payment for shifting ship after hours, which the company had hitherto agreed to. It was unfair to substitute the oompensa-

tion of time off for the time occupied in shipkeoping at one of tho principal ports, instead of extra payment. He had the same objection to Sunday work shipkeeping being counted as ordinary time. In 1919 the clause in force was agreed to, and he strongly lesisted the attempt to take it away. The provision for the holiday period being fixed without reference to the engineer was unfair and might result in idleness until he could resume work. In tlie past a chief or second engineer waiting a ship was not asked to do fitting, and it was not in the interests 6f the company or of discipline that he should be asked to do manual work alongside men of whom he might be placed in charge. The claims omitted clauses providing against payment iu lieu of holidays, and ’that the employer should give as early notice as possible of the date upon which the annual holiday was to commence—both reasonable provisions. He objected to the limit proposed in the choice of home port. Tho clause about -steamers out of commission, .agreed upon in 1919, had now been omitted, a departure most difficult to understand. The exemption of tug boats could not be agreed to, as the work was now much inoro onerous, and a large amount of extra work had to be done for vessels belonging to the combine,, of which the . Union Company was an integral part. The engineers claimed a 33 per cent, increase in wages, but the amount was fixed before the reduction in bonus by the Court. At the same time the engineers contended that their salaries had never reached the stage they believed they were entitled to. He concluded by advocating a three-year award, and expressing the- opinion that the Court will have become so tired of hearing about their troubles that they would ilesdro to 'postpone the next] case for as long as possible. Tho Court rose at 5.30 p.m. till this morning.