SEAMEN'S CLAIMS

Evening Post, Volume 91, Issue 91, 15 October 1923, Page 8

SEAMEN'S CLAIMS

ON DOMINION BASIS

BEFORE CONCILIATION COUNCIL.

The Conciliation Council, before Mr. W. Newton, Commissioner, commenced this morning the hearing of the seamen's and firemen's dispute. The employers were represented by Messrs. W. G. Smith, W. H. G. Bennett, and P. A. Peterson^ while the workers' assessors were Messrs. T. F. Anderson, W. R. Clarke, and W. T. Young. Mr. B. L. Salmond appeared as agent for the shipping companies. Mr. Smith suggested that any agreement reached here should, be accepted as covering other districts in the Dominion, so that there would be no necessity for the council to sit in other centres. Mr. Youn" agreed to this. The dispute was filed by the employers as applicants. There was considerable variance in the wages claims. The employers offered £13 per calendar month for boatswains, while the workers counter-claimed £17 10s per month of 30 days, an. increase of £2 6s 8d monthly on the old award rate. For quartermasters the offer was £12, and the counter-demand for £16 10s, an increase of £1 6s Bd. The companies suggested a general reduction in wages of £2 3s 4d. For firemen the offer was £14, and the demand £15 10s. The other claims have already been published. Mr. Smith went through the claims, pointing out the alterations, comparing the claims with the old award. For special commissions and emergencies, as well as for excursions for a number of days under one month, provision was made for an extra payment of 25 per cent, of wages. There were a large number of minor alterations. Mr. Smith mentioned that the preference clause had been omitted altogether. Mr. Young : "You don't like that?" Mr. Smith : "We have got alone very well without it for the past twelve months." '

Mr. Young : "Well, we might have got along much better with it/ A minute or two later Mr. Smith mentioned that the claims had omitted reference to stop-work meetings. They very strongly objected to them Mr. Young : "We have got along very well with them during the past twelvo months. r

In discussing the claims, Mr. Smith mentioned that the shipowners had been very disappointed at the small reduction that was allowed by the Court on its last pronouncement. The reduction suggested in the claim was to compensate to some extent for the small allowance made for the portion of wages paid for ln keep, for which only lOs per week was allowed, while it cost at least 3s 6d daily. Until something more favourable was allowed the shipowners were going to be handicapped thatch «"*petition. He thought that the council might not agree on the wages question, but there were a which they might agree. The counterproposals, w ,th one or two small alterations, were the same as those put for?W 1 heV he,^™ "ere before the oourt for the old award.