THE ENGINEERS' STRIKE

Evening Star, Issue 17284, 24 February 1920, Page 9

THE ENGINEERS' STRIKE

WHAT THE THOTJBLE IS ALL ABOUT.

The offer now twice rejected by tha engineers constituted an increase of ill per month ou the previous offer made by the Shipping Controller. The following table shows the demands of the engineers and the ship owners' offer, the letters "E.G. " indicating the engineers' claims, and the letters " Q. 0.", the owners' offer. Pence are omitted in every case :

The pre-strike rates ranged from £ls 10s per month for junior engineers to £42 per month for seniors. A minimum over-, time rate of 3s per hour is also offered, and it will be possible for'men to earn up to the amounts in tho original demands. A tribunal, consisting of.one ship owner, one engineer, and an independent chairman, will, under the proposals, be appointed to consider matters in dispute.

SHIPOWNERS STATE .THEIR CASE. The last award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for marine engineers came into .operation as recently as from the end of December, 1918. On December 4 the President, Mr Justice Higgins, giving his reasons for judgment, said:

The claimant has- shown that some startling increases havo been made in the pay of marine engineers in the present- year by the National Maritime Board of Great Britain, and also made recently in the United States, under the stress of war conditions, and it is urged that these increases show that tho services of such engineers should bo rated on a higher level than lias heretofore been customary. I cannot so regard the matter. These increases are abnormal—are due, no doubt, to the risk from submarines and to the alarming increase in the cost of living. According to the best information obtainable by the Commonwealth Statistician the cost of food has increased since the war in Great Britain by 118 per cent., in the United States by nearly 65 per cent., whereas in Australia the increase in food has been only 23 per cent. (30 towns). There is no ground for raising the pay in Australia in the same proportion as in Great Britain and in the United States.

The engineers notified that they were dissatisfied' with this award, and after some preliminary conferences an offer was made to the engineers in November last of £2 per month, which was not accepted by the executive's member, who, however, informed the shipowners that they would lake a vote of the institute members. But meanwhile the Controller of Shipping, with the approval cf the Prime Minister, made an offer to the local secretary in Melbourne of the New Zealand rates of wages, with a minimum for junior engineers higher than the New Zealand scale, and a vote of Melbourne members was taken, which resulted in a very large majority in favor of acceptance. Then ca.me a protest to the Steamship Owners' Federation from the executive in Sydney that all communications should be made to the general secretary. The shipowners replied that no proposals had been made to them otherwise than' to the executive, but they were informed the Controller had made "an offer. Later, through representations in Sydney, the engineers' executive asked the shipowners fcr a conference, at which the Controller of Shipping should be present. The Controller was so informed, and replied direct to -the executive, agreeing to a conference in Melbourne. The conference was held on loth Januarv, and continued on the 19ch and 20th. On the first day the case for the engineers was very fully put by members of the executive, who dealt with rates of pay in Australia and elsewhere, cost of living, overtime, tropical allowances, etc. The shipowners indicated that they were not prepared to recommend the schedule put forward, but intimated that the matter wculd have to be submitted to the Prime Minister. Admiral Clarkson, the Controller, made an appeal to the institute representatives, stating that in conceding the New Zealand rates he _ thought" he had gone to the limit of concession : but he undertook to forward a transcript of the notes to the Prime Minister as an urgent matter._ Later it was understood that the engineers had put another schedule before the Prime Minister, and' the conference reopened with a discussion on this schedule,- which in some cases increased the demands. During the diseus:r>.i>n it was pointed out that the offer made by the Controller was a good one, and ta.it the engineers should have accepted it, and have gone to the Arbitration Court if they considered they were entitled to more. One of the delegates had stated that they were prepared to stand on the data and arguments submitted to the conference, and to take them to a higher tribunal if that should be desired, and on being asked it' they meant the Arbitration Court the repi'y was "No. an independent tribunal." The result c-f this conference, wiueh had very fully discussed the amended proposal's put forward by the institute representatives to the Prime Minister, was communicated to the Prime Minister, who was informed that the shipowners were of opinion the amended offer should not be _ entertained. The conference met again on the 20th, wfcfcn the shipowners again stated they were not prepared to recommend the schedule put forward, and considered the offer made J>y the Controller was a fair one. and that nothing which had been said 'in support of the engineers' schedules justified" the shipowners in accepting them. The Chairman stated that there seemed to be r.o way_ out of the .difficulty except through the institute representatives. If they were disposed to agree to the whole matter being placed before what both sides considered ,a satisfactory tribunal, then the shipowners were prepared to discuss that proposal with them. The shipowners went further, and said if they preferred the matter should be dealt with by the conference, in order to show that" they were not confined to the award given by Mr Justice Higgins, as was indeed apparent by shipowners' acceptance of the rates offered by the Controller*, they were prepared, if it would help the institute representatives to put an end to the present state of affairs, to giVe £1 per month on the Controller's offer, and to disouss the question of overtime. The Chairman stated it- was a big offer, and they made it only hecause they were met in conference, and having met did not want the institute executive or anybody else ■ to say that the shipowners were adamant in adhering to their ov?n views. The chairman was then asked, if the offer were accepted, was it understood that the tribunal would still be eligible to sit, and could the claims of both sides be submit tod for further'revision. After a very long discussion ~a~s to whether the scope of the tribunal should be from the Arbitration Court award up to the engineers' demands, while the shipowners reserved to themselves the right to a full statement of their case between these two limits, they agreed that, whatever the decision of th© umpire might be, the wages now offered by them should continue in force. A discttssioii .arose «f to; sh« of the

f tribunal, and it was eventually approved that it should be the conference, with an i independent chairman or umpire, and the name of the gentleman who it was intended to request the Prime Minister to x ask to preside, was approved of unanimously by members of both sides. The final result of the conference is embodied in the following memorandum :

I am authorised to say that we are prepared to give you £1 per month above the Controller's offer of 16/12/19, on the understanding that on resumption: of work a further conference will be held, with an, umpire mutually agreed upon in the chair, whose decision shall be final, each side to be in a position to put its argument before him, with a view to obtaining his decision as to whether the shipowners have fixed a fair rate of remuneration for your members, or whether your members are entitled to a- further increase, but not exceeding tho original demands you placed before us. It is understood that the umpire v.-ill not be empowered to reduce the wage below the amount paid on resumption of work.

The engineers undertook to place this before their members, and to get the machinery into operation by telegram, and tho shipowners were assured that no stone would be left unturned tp obtain a decision as early as possible. The result of the ballot is now- known, and the general public must form its own opinion. I'he engineers bad an opportunity of resuming work on a schedule conceding considerably more than half they were asking, and with this schedule as a minimum were at liberty to argue their case for further concession before an independent chairman or umpire whom they had approved.

Steamer Engineers' Hates H.P. Clrief. 2nd. 3rd. 4th. "Under 100— £ s. £ s. £ s. £ s. E.C. 35 12 28 0 25 2 0.0. ... 33 0 25 0 22 10 _ 100 to 150— E.O. ... 37 4 28 0 25 2 O.O. ... 34 0 25 0 22 10 _ 150 to 200— E.C. ... 33 17 30 14 25 18 —» O.O. ... 35 0 27 0 23 0 200 to 250— 'E.C. 42 2 32 8 27 10 22 14 O.O. ... 37 10 28 0 24 0 20 10 250 to 350— E.O. ... 45 4 32 8 27 10 22 14 O.O. ... 40 0 23 0 24 0 20 10 350 to 450— E.O. ... 48 12 34 0 29 4 24 6 O.O 42 0 29 0 25 0 22 0 450 to 600— E.G 51 16 35 0 29 4 24 6 O.O. ... 44 10 30 10 25 0 22 0 600 to 800— E.C. ... 55 0 37 0 29 4 24 6 O.O. 46 10 30 10 25 0 22 0 800 to 1,000E.O. ... 58 6 38 0 31 8 26 0 0.0 49 0 32 0 26 10 23 10 1,000 and over — E.O. ... 61 10 39 14 33 6 27 14 O.O. ... 51 0 33 0 27 10 24 10 Juniors— E.O. ... — — — 19 5 0.0. ... — — — 19 0