SHIPPING DISPUTES

Evening Star, Issue 18048, 16 August 1922, Page 3

SHIPPING DISPUTES

. MASTERS AND OFFICERS. TWO SIDES OF THE SHIELD. WAR PROFITS AND WAR SERVICE. The Arbitration Court heard at AVollingtou yesterday the masters and officers dispute. Mr W. G. Smith appearing for the Union Company. . • Mr Smith said that tho_ total increase (including bonus) in. the basic wage for the lowest-paid officer (fourth) over pre-war was 70 per cent., or in the case of the third officers 72.7 per cent. As these increases far exceeded any increase in the ‘•ost of living, there was every justification for .1 substantial reduction. The employers were asking for a 20 per cent, reduction on the rates fixed by the 1919 agreement, with a £2 bonus added. The wages on United Kingdom vessels, from which the company had now to face keen competition. had been reduced by amounts from £5 10s for first officers to £7 per month for fourth officers. On the United Kingdom vessels practically' no overtime was paid, and on the United States vessels there was no overtime* at all. Tho guild was asking for a continuation of the 1919 agreement, with a£2 bonus added. In regard to hours, tho employers were asking for a return to the fifty-six-hour week. Owing to tho nature of tho shipping business "it was absolutely necessary to have as much elasticity r.s possible in regard! to working hours. If the officers’ hours were fixed at fifty-six per week at sea or in port, a/system of relief could easily be arranged without excessive hours. Tho employers offered the very strongest objeetions to the guild's claim for fixed hours and' overtime for masters. _ The principle of giving overtime to men in positions of trust was thoroughly bad. Incidentally, Mr Smith urged strongly again that the Australian awards should not bo accepted as a guide for New Zealand, as the conditions here were different. The Australian ships were fully protected under the Navigation Act, whereas New Zealand ships were competing in the world market. The principle that seagoing workers were to bo recorded as shore workers, and given time off on the assumption that the whole of the fifty-two Sundays anti eight public holidays of the year were spent at sea, was strongly opposed by tho employers. In the Union Company's service only about One-third of the time'was' spent at) sea. The proportion of time in port tended to increase., with a corresponding reduction of time at sea. In view of the fact that larger vessels were being employed, there was no reason why seamen should be given special consideration or special compensation for work which was an essential part of the industry. Captain W. MTndoe, who appeared for tho Merchant Service Guild, said that in viewing the question of the wages of ships’ officers tho court would have to take into consideration the enormous amount of profits the company had made during tho war years.

Mr Smith objected' to such matters being brought up. He also protested against the reference to the P. and 0. combine. The dispute was between the guild and the Union Company, and he submitted) that it was irrelevant to drag in a lot of matter concerning the P. and) 0. Company. His Honor: The guild is raising the ouestion of the ability of the company to pay the higher rates. The company’s present earnings, you say, axe not sufficient to enable it to meet the present expenditure. Mr Smith: That is obvious from the last balance-sheet, which shows that wo paid out more than we earned. I have already explained the position of the industry. In one sense wo do not plead oovertv.

His Honor: You are resting your case entirely upon the present earnings of the company. Mr Smith: We do not say that the company is unable to pay. His Honor; The guild maintains that while the profits of the company were satisfactory the rates paid! were not very high, and thev now ask for something higher. Somehow or other, Mr Smith, you have given me the impression that the combine is something to be ashamed! of.

Mr Smith; Oh, no, your Honor. The object of my remarks was to protest against this allegation, which is absolutely untrue. His Honor: I think that this combine

or the P. and 0. Company can he kept

out of the case. There is no question of the ability of the company to pay. They are not pleading .bankruptcy, or that their present earnings are eaten up with the present expenditure. The question of past profits is not a fair matter to be referred to.

Mr M. J. Eeardon said that years ago the people had learned' to be proudi of the Union Company; but he did not think anyone could have felt proud of it during the last few years. Mr Smith; I do not know on what ground you base your statement, or why you make it. What has it to do with! the case? • Mr Reardon did not reply. Captain MTndoo stated that the Union Company, owing to its advantageous position, had already alleviated its condition to a great extent by 'increasing freights and passenger fares, and had recently laid) up "a number of its ships and) dispensed with masters and officers. A strong argu- ' roont of the company for keeping salaries low had been the absolute guarantee, of permanent employment. This could nob 1 e maintained in the present dispute, and was a solid reason why the court should not decrease salaries at the present stage. The company laying to some extent protected itself against the existing depression, ‘it was now appealing to the court for further assistance. The guild! was confident that the court -would protect its status and maintain the standard of living cd a profession which had played such a _ noble part during the war without receiving any adequate remuneration, as compared with the enormous war profits made by the company.