HANDLING CARGO

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 127, 23 February 1938, Page 13

HANDLING CARGO

Employment Of Seamen Or Watersiders? < SMALL VESSELS Arbitration Court Asked For Interpretation A question having arisen as to the interpretation of certain clauses in the Netf Zealand waterside workers award aud in (be Northern, Wellington aud Otago antf Southland seamens award dealing with the employment of seamen, the Arbitration Court sat last night at Wellington to interpret the awards. The court was asked by the, Department of Labour “M Bether seamen employed on the Awahou, a ves-, sei of 206 tons net register, are entitled to drive winches and/or handle cargo on the ship while the remainder of the loading and unloading on the ship and the wharf is done by waterside workers. ,> / His Honour Mr. J ustice O’Regan presided, and with him were Messrs. A. L. Monteith, workers’ representative, , and W. Cecil Prime, employers’ reprei sentative. Mi. P. H. Kinsman appear- ( ed for the Labour Department and the Waterside Workers’ Federation and the Seamen’s Union were represented .by Messrs. J. J. Roberts and F. P. Walsh respectively. For some time, said Mr. Kinsman, there had been a misunderstanding in regard to the working of the small steamers Awahou and Afriko, and the department was anxious “-to haxe the position clarified. Mr. Roberts and Mr. Walsh would place the views of their respective organisations before the court.

His Honour indicated that as it was an interpretation of the waterside workers’ award that was sought and only incidentally an interpreation of the . seamen’s award, Mr. Roberts should address the court first. Mr. Roberts: I didn’t want this case brought. We weren’t consulted about it. We were merely told a case was ■being brought and asked to make representations. In other words,. Mr. Kinsman has thrown down a bone and left us to fight over it. Wbat is the Labour Department for, anyway? Why didn’t the department make the interpretation? x t His Honour: The inspector is quite entitled-to ask the court.for an interpretation. Mr. Roberts: It doesn’t matter to me who starts, but I should have thought the inspector would have stated a case before the court. Waterside Workers’ Submissions. On behalf of the waterside workers, Mr. Roberts submitted that clause 50 of the waterside workers’ award dealing with preference, had a direct bearing on the question, and its interpretation should also be taken into con sideration by the court. It was a longstanding dispute which had arisen originally out of -the fact that the employers had agreed with the representatives of the Waterside Workers’ Union that if members' of that organisation were available, seamen would not be employed, loading or discharging cargo or on the wharves, in trucks, sheds or stores. The agreement, arrived at on December 23, 1936, had later been adopted by the majority of a plebiscite vote of the waterside workers of New Zealand. The agreement had later been submitted to a council of conciliation, had been agreed to by the assessors and referred to the Court of Arbitration to be made into an award.

It appeared that, in January, 1937, the shipowners met the representatives of the seamen and arrived at an agreement. Later, in conciliation council, the parties had agreed that seamen could be employed at the tvork of handling cargo, hatches and gear, and that that ■ work should be deemed to be seamen’s work as heretofore. The question had been argued at length at the sitting in June, 1937, at Christchurch, and the court had made the waterside workers’ award on Noveinher 30, 1937. Clause 93 exempted the shipowners frojn its provisions in respect . of the employment of articled seamen in accordance with the custom hitherto prevailing, pursuant of Clause 58 of the seamen’s award dealing with cargo work. The waterside workers' award also stated that if any of the provisions of that award should be in conict with the provisions of Clause 58 of the seamen’s award, Clause 38 should prevail. The question arose, therefore, as to whether, the court had power under the 1936 legislation to give the employer the preference or the right to employ either seamen or waterside workers to load or discharge cargo. The waterside workers submitted that the court had not that power, but must award preference either to the waterside workers or to the seamen and could not give the employer the right to employ waterside workers or seamen.

The waterside workers questioned as to whether the court had authority under the I.C. and A. Act to include a clause in the Waterside Workers’ Award stating that, if members of the Waterside Workers’ Union were available seamen should not be employed loading or discharging vessels or on the wharves as was provided in clause 40 and in clause 93 of the same award virtually to give to the employers the right to employ either seamen or waterside workers. The waterside workers held that either they had preference or they had not. They were advised that the court could not under the terms of the I.C. and A. Act give preference of employment to two industrial unions for the same work, and further that the court could not give the right to any employer to employ either seamen or waterside workers at the work of loading or discharging cargo. If the court held that seamen had preference, there was no obligation on the waterside workers to perform the work on vessels on which the employer elected to employ seamen loading or discharging cargo. Previous Awards.

‘‘Under all previous awards,” said Mr. Roberts, “seamen may be employed on vessels of 275 tons net register and under, together with waterside workers, loading or discharging cargo if such vessels are registered in New Zealand. There is no provision in the present award that states that seamen and waterside workers shall be employed together and, if the court agrees that seamen have preference of employment on these vessels the waterside workers will not Object'to seamen performing all the work in one hatch or alb the work on the ship, as the case may be. They are not, under the terms of their own award, required to work along with seamen. If seamen are given preference there is no obligation oij the part of the waterside workers to work aboard these small vessels, and we submit that if the court bolds that seamen have preference then the waterside workers have no preference and such work cannot be regarded as water-

side work as the employers are exempted from the provisions of the award and can employ seamen in preference to waterside workers.”

* Case of the Awahou.

“In the case of the Awahou, that vessel has been running to the port of Gisborne regularly Tor more than two years, and, though this ship is less than 275 tons net register, seamen have not been employed during that time at the work, of loading and discharging cargo if union waterside labour was available. The change was made only a few weeks ago when the employer informed our representative at Gisborne that the seamen had instructions to work cargo on that vessel. The waterside workers held that, as it was not the practice previously for seamen to work cargo aboard the Awahou, clause 58 of the Seamen’s Award and clause 93 of the Waterside Workers’' Award did not give them the right to the work. In other words, we submit, that, if it was not the practice to employ seamen previously, the employers had not the right to do so now unless it is held by the Court that seamen are to be given preference of employment aboard all those smaller vessels. If the Court, should rule in that way, then it is obvious that the waterside workers have no obligation to perforin any work on these vessels. Their obligation consists only in receiving cargo on the wharf and to handle cargo from the wharf to the ship. “The two clauses as they are at present drafted will, in our opinion, be the cause of numerous disputes at all ports. We have several proposals before the employers, but they have been turned down, and it now remains for the Court to give a decision to the effect that either seamen or waterside workers have preference of employment to work on board vessels of 275 tons net register and under.” Continuing, Mr. Roberts said that the reason employers in the case of small vessels were everywhere insisting that seamen be employed was not that they liked seamen better than waterside workers, but that if a seaman was on watch he did not have to be paid anything. There was no quarrel between the waterside workers’ and seamen’s '■organisations, and the employers were using the position to create differences. As regards the large ports where there was a reasonable volume of work for everybody, the waterside workers did not eare if the seaman worked the small vessels all the time, but at the small ports such as Gisborne, Napier or New Plymouth, the position was quite different. If) no work was offering on Monday and Tuesday the waterside worker went home for The day, whereas the seaman worked all the way down the coast, and it was not a fair thing that he should then be allowed to work cargo while the waterside worker got nothing. All the waterside workers asked was a fair run.

No Quarrel. Though it appeared from the Press that there bad been a quarrel between Air. Walsh and himself, that was not the ease: the quarrel was with the shipowners. Seamen had a right to receive overtime, but not when another man who was waiting for the job got nothing. “We want preference to do the job or we don’t want preference at all,” said Air. Roberts, concluding his argument. Seamen’s Case. He had not been aware of the dispute till he returned from Australia last Monday, said Air. Walsh, and only on the morning of the hearing had he Received notice from the Department of Labour that the matter was to come before the court. Like Air. Roberts, lie had not been consulted before the papers were served. ;“I submit,” said Air. "Walsh, “that many of the matters raised by Air. Roberts have nothing to do with this court. If Mr. Roberts wants to challenge the powers of this court, there is another body he must go to. The questions he refers to were thoroughly threshed out at Christchurch.” Air. Walsh went on to reply to statements macle by Air. Roberts, which, he said, if left unchallenged, would leave a false Impression on the court. Mr. Roberts had stated that the court’s award had been a bitter pill to the waterside workers, but they had swallowed It. What were the facts? At Gisborne, there had been a hold-up for about a week after the matter had been argued in Christchurch. Quite recently, the Taupata had been held up at Lyttelton, causing dislocation at the port. Air. Roberts: What do you mean, quite recently? It was last. August. Air. -Walsh: The crew of the Taupata had always worked the winches at Lyttelton and Wellington and the watersiders refused to man the vessel jf seamen were employed. The seamen, jvithout reference to their officials, Stood fast, and it was only after the Alinister of Labour and Cabinet intervened that the watersiders agreed to work with seamen. There have been several disputes aud all have been settled without reference to the court. Air. Roberts will admit that seamen have always worked the Mako. “I think it is essential that the court in coming to a decision in this matter should refer back to what has happened in the past. Right up to the time when the Labour Party came into power, seamen and watersiders have ‘worked harmoniously on small vessels.”

Mr. Walsh referred to the alleged admission of Mr. Bishop, secretary of the small shipowners’ organisation, at Christchurch, that he had coihe to an agreement with Mr. Roberts, without the knowledge of consent of the coastal owners, to deprive seamen of the right to work cargo on the small vessels.

For the court to do as Mr. Roberts suggested was an impossibility, contended Mr. Walsh. If the court did accede to his request, it would act against the smooth running of the industry—if a line of demarcation were drawn it would inevitably lead to friction.

His Honour said he remembered the first day the court sat in Christchurch. Mr. Bishop had mentioned that an agreement had been' reached with the waterside workers and that the coastal shipowners had’refused to be bound by the agreement Mr. Walsh: Mr. Roberts has asked the court to give seamen or waterslders the preference.' We’re not asking for that. We’re asking that the custom lai'd down by previous awards shall continue.

His Honour: .You say that what you want is the restoration of the old settled practice? Mr. Walsh: Yes. I want to s ay that I regret that the court has been called on to go over all this matter which was raised in Christchurch. Mr. Roberts has raised a lot of bogys. All that is necessary is to ascertain what was the practice previously. A Denial.

Replying to Mr. Walsh, Mr. Roberts emphatically denied that he had made a private agreement .with Mr. Bishop or that it had been arrived at without the knowledge and consent of the small shipowners. Sir, Bishop, secretary of the Small Shipowners’ Federation, was

the recognised leader of the conference, and among the 30 or so people present for the greater part of three weeks had been Mr. Dyson, of the Anchor Company, Captain Hammond, of the Northern Company, Captain Holm, of the Canterbury line, and Mr. McLeay, representing the Richardson Company. “Mr. Bishop was the leader of the conference, and we came to an agreement,’’ said Mr. Roberts. “Subsequently it was submitted to a ballot of 6500 waterside workers. Could I then withdraw it and kill my own personal honour and integrity?” Mr. Roberts referred to the seamen’s agreement having been made hurriedly in chambers without his having had official notice. Tills was denied by Mr. Walsh, who said Mr. Roberts had been notified by the registrar, but had not chosen to appear. Mr. Roberts: I don’t want this practice of waterside workers and seamen together, because you’re buying trouble. But the seamen in one part of the ship if you like. I know what Mr. Walsh wants. He’s going to have the seamen manning the winches and doing the easy jobs. If there are six seamen on the ship and three hatches, i you’ll find all the seamen working the winches. Mr. Monteith: The trouble is the employers gave the same work to two seta of people, and both of you now naturally want the bargin you have entered into. His Honour: We will take time to consider the question, and do our best to come to a conclusion as soon as possible.