ARBITRATION COURT.

Evening Post, Volume LIII, Issue 115, 17 May 1897, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

«, THE SHIPPING DISPUTE. The Arbitration Court, consisting of Mr. Justice Williams and Messrs. H. Thomson (representing the employers) and J. U. Slater (representing the workers), sat today to consider the points in dispute in the report of the Conciliation Board ■with reference to the shipping dispute. Clauses 5 and 6 of the report of the Board, dealing respectively with the right of the Union representative to go on board the vessels during the seamens' ofE-time, and with the preference of Union men to employment, though accepted by the "Wellington Branch of the Federated Seamen's Union, had been appealed on "by the shipowners. For the Union, the President, Mr. Hindmarsh, and the Secretary, Mr. W. Jones, appeared, while the shipowners were represented by Messrs. J. Duncan (Levin & Co.), (+\X. Turner (Blackball Company), J. H. Cock (Anchor Line Company), and A. H. Turnbull (Tumbull &, Co.). His Honour said that from the papers it appeared that the "Wellington Seamen's Union had been willing to accept the report in its entirety. Mr. Cock said that the points apart from sections 5 and 6 bad been conceded by the shipowners. He desired to know whether the whole award would be re-opened. His Honour said that that decision lay with the Seamen's Union, and appealed to Mr. Hindmarsb, who said that the Union intended to re-open the whole case. After some discussion as to precedence, his Honour held that the Union should first state its case. Mr. Cock stated that the Union had really accepted certain portions of tho award, inasmuch as' they had accepted the higher rate of pay recommended in the award. Mr. Hindmarsh said that there was no agreement come to to the effect that the whole report, except the disputed clauses, was assented to. Mr. Duncan thereupon put in a letter dated -15th March, from the Secretary of the Union, intimating that the Union agreed on the general report, and another letter written subsequent to the appeal made by the employers, in which the Secretary called Mr. Duncan's attention to the fact that his firm was not paying the additional wage .agreed upon in the Board's recommendation. Mr. Hindmarsh said the position was that the employers wanted to compromise on certain questions and appeal to arbitration on the rest. Mr. Cock said that the shipowners would never have paid the extra wages had they known that that question was to be reopened. After further discussion the Court held that the whole matter was before it, but that if it appeared that there had been' an agreement of the parties in respect to certain clauses, that fact would be taken into consideration. If the award went in the favour of the employers, the Court was at present advised that the extra wages paid to their men would have to be refunded to the shipowners. Mr. Hindmarsh thereupon stated that his Union would" accept the decision arrived at by the Board with respect to the first four clauses. That would leave only the fifth and sixth clause before the Court. Mr. Cock then set forth the reasons which the employers-hud for appealing in reference to the disputed clauses. He contended that the employers should be allowed the fullest freedom of contract. The recent amendments of the Shipping Acts, providing that seamen had to be certificated for a certain time before being available for employment, had already much limited tho field of employ, and if this class was further limited by a decision that the seamen must belong to a. Union, the field of available men would be still further limited. That was a serious matter both from the labourers' and shipowners' point of view. A man's right to sell Ins labour was to be restricted so that he could only do so through a Union. If the shipowner could not employ any particular qualified seaman he chose, then he was not the employer but the employe", and a mere wage-finder. He asked that the definition of. the competency of a unionist against a non-unionist should be left in the decision of the.employer ; otherwise there would probably he endless litigation. The men in the Union Steam Ship Company have practically come to an agreement closely analogous, to that assented to by tho employers before the Court.

Why should that large corporation, employing a large majority of the seamen, be placed in a better position than the small shipowners ? The proposed erection of a special privilege given to the Union officials to visit the seamen on board private property he characterised as preposterous. The unionists had plenty of opportunity of meeting the seamen outside the vessels. Mr. Turner said that the Unions aimed nt restricting the employment of seamen to those who belonged to the N"w Zealand Union. He instanced a case which had occurred to himself, when he had to employ a man of very bad character simply because there was no other unionist, and he was not allowed to employ a non- unionist. If English or Australian A.B.s cune to New Zealand and refused to join the local Union, the companies could not employ them. Mr. Duncan objected to the two clauses on sentimental reasons, on account of the bad feeling that would be caused between the men. The shipowners had always readily consented to any of the demands of the seamen, and desired to work on friendly terms with the men. The Court then adjourned for luncheon. On the Court resuming at 2 p.m., Mr. Hindmarsh said that the Union desired to call two witnesses to speak as to the preferential employment of Unionists. He regarded Mr. Cock's objections to the preferential right of Unionists for employment as historical. The Court should decide this matter more from its effects upon Uniouism and society than in the interests of the employers. He asked the Court for such a decision as would allow the Unions to continue living, as if the employers' demands were conceded they would be able in a few months to crush the strongest Union. He contended that unionism, being an attempt to upraise a class that was not able to otherwise look after its members, was a good thing. The only .demand in this case was that where there were two men of equal qualifications, one a unionist and the other not, the unionist was to be preferred. The Union was asking that concession in self-defence. Mr. Jones said that no man was compelled to enter the Union, and there was no ballot necessary for the admittance of anyone to the Wellington branch, ne had other reasons why he should go on board the vessels than those merely pertaining to Unionism. Frequently letters to seamen were addressed to his care rather than to their ships. After further argument he called Thos. L. Mills, compositor, who stated that he had for 11 years belonged to the Wellington Typographical Union. He thought that all the printers in Wellington were unionists. He could not recall any firm in town which did not employ unionists when it could get them. If the practice prevailed in Wellington of engaging nonunionists, it would tend to break up tho Union, whose whole strength lay in the fact that the members worked together to maintain a living wage. (Left sitting.)