RETENTION AT SEA

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 25, 30 January 1923, Page 8

RETENTION AT SEA

IS THE LAW BEING VIOLATED?

■-DIFFERENCE ABOUT HOME PORT.

The retention in the shipping service •until they reach their home ports of un•qualified seamen and firemen, who were "engaged during the recent merchant serivice trouble, is being protested against ?by numbers of Labour bodies," and it is vsaid to be causing dissatisfaction amongst " seamen. It is contended that the in■"struction issued to this .'efiect. by the ■Minister of Marine, and supported by ,an opinion from xhe Crown Law Office, -is a distinct breach of the Act, and that nthe clause relating-to .the engagement •'of unqualified men'only' in the eveut of ?qualified men not being' procurable is beting deliberately violated. ' : The Minister issued'the following statement last night-.—"My attention has -been called to a statement by Mr. Clark, Secretary of the Dunedin branch of the /Seamen's Union, to. the effect that Mr. ; Massey promised to reinstate the suspended requirements of the Shipping and -Seamen Act, 1909, and failed to redeem .'his promise. This statement is contrary 'to fact. The provisions were reinstated "at the conclusion of the recent shipping '■trouble. In reply to a communication re'.'ceived on Saturday, I informed Mr. ' Clark that I had "consulted the Crown -Law Office and had been advised that -the men employed.on the ships could not Ibe discharged, unless they desired it, until the vessels returned to their home -'ports, and the articles" under which the "men had been engaged were completed. !' . The viewpoint of the members of the . Federated Seamen's Union was expressed by the secretary-.(Mr,.W.. T. Young) -to a "Post" reporter to-day. Ma-. Young • stated that the discontent reported- in* " Dunedin prevailed to a certain extent -■ at every port', but particularly in Dune- :, din. When the Shipping Act was reinstated on 24th January, the Minister_il-. -legally, he contended, made the condition ' that vessels could continue the employ- ", ment of unqualified labour - until they <■ reached their home port. This meant^ i in effect, that notwithstanding the fact ", that the Act was supposed to have been '•- reinstated, the unqualified men could ;■' remain on board lititi)' .they reached their '■ home port. Mr. Young contended that ~ the Minister possessed no such power. " under Section 57 of the Shipping Act '■ or any other Act.,; The home port, he "; pointed out, was deemed to be the port «at which the articles of the vessel-were, ". taken out. He 'had written to the Mm■- ■ ister drawing his attention to the 'fact :• that ships took ont their articles at ccl 1' '■. tain ports for a period of six months, :' that in many cases they did not return 'to the home port for many months. He 'referred oarticularly. to Port Chalmers. i The Union Company's vesEels went there "■ for overhaul, and then took our fresh • articles from that port for the follow- •' mi six months, and in most cases the L; boats "did not return, to the' port: until ''the. next;;; overhaul w;as due. By. 1; the ■i conclusion, ofetheiMiniater, therefore-, the ? free*:;!uii'qn'a'Hfied laßfurers"might-remam" 'I aboard a verxJarge^nuraberjDf _ships._, i Mr. Young: said»'he-had-noticed the \ Minister's statement quoted' above, : ,"I ;{ hold, however,", said Mr. Young, '-'that ■'■ the-Minister's contention regarding the* port is not in any way in conformity with the law, but seemingly is 'in terms of the award of the Arbitration Court, which he. as Minister of Marine, is riot called-upon-to-administer.'. Not- ' .withstanding his ruling,' I have to point • out that Section 75 of the Shipping and ...SeameniAct, 1908,: which the Minister is ;;\requir.ed 'to administer', lays down what 'shall be the port of discharge, and provides that the agreement with the sea--;';'men ni'ay be Jter'nimated at?the.' final, port ;T"of discharge in New Zealand by 24 hours' ••.■notice on either side of the completion !<of .aground voyage. I have to point out ; .•■ithat-what appears" in the award on this -subject is contrary ■ to statute law and ■'^'therefore- void., ,- . ,/., '.'Another thing that we have request- . Ed of the Minister is that there shall be • >an immediate examination of the quali;"ifications held by free labour in the ships, ;?with the object of ascertaining whether ■:'.any one of the men possesses the qualifi.':'cations , required by law. So |br we ;-;have "had no.'reply. and no.:doubt the. has also gone to the ,;,*Crown Law Office, which is a very conrvenient'medium for the delay evidently ridesired by .the. Minister." ..