MARITIME STRUGGLE

Evening Star, Issue 19061, 2 October 1925, Page 9

MARITIME STRUGGLE

WATERSIDERS* ATTITUDE A DEFINITE STATEMENT STANDING ALOOF Pres* Awooiation—By Telegraph—Copyright, Australian and N.Z. Press Association. SYDNEY. October 1. (Received October 2, at 1.15 a.m.) The general president of the Waterside Workers’ Federation has issued a statement clearly defining the attitude of the federation towards the seamen’s strike. It states:— The federation emphatically refuses to be drawn into the dispute. The Union has supported as far as possible the action or British seamen, who have chosen to take direct action 12,000 ‘miles from the origin of the dispute. An attempt has been made to win the dispute at the expense of certain Australian maritime unions. The officials of the waterside workers have never been consulted over the dispute. They have simply been informed by the advisers or those men and other self-appointed authorities ■ that an injury to one is an injury to all, and their trouble to-day may bo the watersiders’ to-morrow.

After reviewing the resolutions carried by the Sydney transport group declaring British ships “black,” and stating in this respect that- the seamen believed the strike would be won by forcing the wharf worker on to the bread line, the statement concludes;—• As far as the expulsion of Mr Havelock Wilson is concerned, it has nothing to do wdth the trade unions In Australia, where the unions have enough to do to keep their own officials in order. The federation advises the-seamen to take the disputes where they belong, as the unions, in Australia nave enough to do to fight thoir own battles. DEPORTATION BOARD. SYDNEY, October 1. At the Deportation Board Mr Watt (counsel for Walsh), pressing for the issue of subpoenas against Mr Bruce and Senator Pearce, said that they knew facts which should be before the board. If the board did not call them he intended to tender subpoenas for signature. After the board had deliberated in private the chairman announced that, as the hoard was not satisfied that Mr Bruce and Senator Pearce could give material evidence, it was not disposed to ask either to appear of his own volition. It also declined to sign subpoenas for their attendance. CHARGES WITHDRAWN. SYDNEY, October 1. 'When sixty-three members of the crew of the Orania appeared at the Police Court to answer charges arising out of the strike, counsel for the ship owners asked that the charges be withdrawn. The men cheered lustily as they left the court free. MORE SEAMEN SENTENCED, SYDNEY, October 1. A further hatch of striking seamen were sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment. STATEMENT BY OWNERS. THREAT TO OMIT FREMANTLE.

SYDNEY, October 1. The Oversea Shipping Representatives* Association has received advice from the British Ship Owners’ Committee stating that, unless adequate guarantees or effective police protection are forthcoming, no overseas British ships will call at Fremantle. The statement of the Ship Owners’ Association notifying the threat to omit Fremantle says; “Physical force and mob violence directed against the British unionists are a significant indication of the desperate tactics of the Red element which is responsible for _ the strike. More serious still is the failure to provide police protection. When physical violence takes command it is a certain sign that the situation of the strikers is becoming critical. The British ship owners have no intention of submitting their loyal men to violence, and unless adequate guarantees of police protection are forthcoming vessels will cease to call at Fremantle.’* The statement also denies that any negotiations are proceeding for a settlement of the strike on a basis of the restoration of the reduction, and adds:. “The only terms on which the men will he re-employed include their unconditional return to work.” ' THE SEAMEN’S ULTIMATUM. GOVERNMENT’S ATTITUDE. SYDNEY, October 1. In the Assembly, Mr Lang, in reply to a question, stated that he had received an ultimatum from the Seamen’s Union, and, speaking on behalf of the Government and the Parliamentary Labor Party, he would like to say that they were not going to accept ary ultimatum from the Seamen’s Union or from Walsh and Johnson. The Government would take full responsibility, and would take no notice or any ultimatum.

[A previous message stated that the Australian Seamen’s Union had decided to serve an ultimatum on the State Government demanding the immediate introduction of legislation to abolish the Permanent Casual Waterside Union. The president of the Waterside Workers’ Federation'denied that his organisation had delivered an ultimatum to the Government.] INTIMIDATION TACTICS. NO POLICE PROTECTION. MELBOURNE, October 2. (Received October 2, at 10.35 a.m.) Mr Bruce said that he had received it telegram from the overseas shipping representatives at Perth setting out the facts regarding the intimidation of the crew of the steamer Demodocus, stating that no police protection was available and that the Commissioner of Police admitted that he could not cope with the situation. Mr Bruce telegraphed to the Premier of Western Australia (Mr Collier) asking him what action he proposed to take for the protection of loyal seamen, and what assurance could bo given that arriving steamers would not be subjected to_ similar interference such rs occurred in the case of the Demodocus. [Between 200 and 300 British seamen swarmed on board the steamer Demodocais, which arrived from England recently, and intimidated the crew, which joined the strike. The crew consisted of twenty Europeans and forty Chinese.] JOINING THE STRIKE. MELBOURNE, October 2. (Received October 2, at 10.45 a.m.) Forty-eight firemen and twelve seamen from the steamer Suevic on her arrival from England decided to join the strike.

THE ORVIETO. SYDNEY, , October 2. (Received October 2, at 10.35 a.m.) On the arrival of the Oryieto from Melbourne, owing to intimidation at other ports, the vessel will remain at anchorage, whore adequate protection can be afforded by the owners to the loyal members of the crew. MONEY WANTED FOR ELECTIONS. ADELAIDE, October 2. (Received October 2, at 10.35 a.m.) It is probable that the steamer Ascanius will be able to leave port shortly, as several men who have been released from gaol have returned to the vessel. Many men also returned to the Balranald. Trouble exists in Labor circles in regard to the position to bo taken in the strike. It is said that many unions refused to make levies for the support of strikers, owing to the cost of the approaching elections. They have intimated that the seamen must be abandoned till after the campaign. TRADERS DISCUSS POSITION. MELBOURNE, October 2. (Received October 2, at 12.5 p.ra.) At a meeting of importers and exporters to discuss the effect on trade of the shipping strike the opinion was expressed that the commercial interests Should make their own arrangements for manning, loading, and unloading vessels. A committee was formed to ensure a representative attendance of merchants at a meeting to bo held early next week. POSITION IN BRITAIN A TEST CASE. REFERRED TO ADMIRALTY • COURT. LONDON, September 30. A number of officials of the Amalgamated Marino Workers’ Union wore present at Southampton to hear a shipping strike test case, when Frederick Jackson, a fireman on the Union Castle liner Saxon, claimed 24s wages, contending under the Merchant Shipping Act that seamen’s wages were unalterable in the course of a voyage. His solicitors requested, after evidence had been taken, that the matter should be referred to the Admiralty Court. A Loudon solicitor contended that the National Maritime Board had acted ultra vires in entering into a wages agreement, since two-thirds of the seamen, including the Marine Workers’ Union, were not represented on the board. The magistrates referred the case to the Admiralty Court. —Router.

PERIL OF THE STRIKE,

ONLY SIX WEEKS’ SUPPLY.

LONDON, September 18. Major Archibald Boyd Carpenter, formerly Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and later to tho Admiralty, points out that the Australasian shipping strike imperils Britain’s food, of which she has only a six weeks’ plyIt is estimated that 35,000 dependents of absent seamen who are oh strike are drawing £40,000 a week in poor law relief.

NEW ZEALAND PORTS . ,

TROUBLE ON THE DEVON.

SEAMEN ORDERED TO RETURN,

[Pee United Peess Association.]

AUCKLAND, October 1. Eight seamen from the steamer Devon pleaded guilty in the Police Court to-day to absenting themselves from duty without lawful excuse. Mr Haig, for the New .Zealand Shipping Company, said the charge was brought under a section of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Devon arrived from Liverpool on September 18, and the men loft on September 24, and had not returned. All the Auckland cargo had been discharged, and the Devon was now waiting to go to Wellington. The Shipping Company desired that an order should be made for the men to return, and they were quite willing to do so. ■ , The Magistrate, Mr Cutten, made an order accordingly. The men were ordered to forfeit £2 5s from their wages and pay 5s costs.

THE HORORATA

ATTEMPT TO TRANSHIP DUNEDIN CARGO FAILS [Fee United Press Association.] CHRISTCHURCH, October 2. An effort was made last night and again this morning by the New Zealand Shipping Company to unload the cargo of the Hororata which is consigned to Dunedin. The watersiders, however, refused to be transferred from the Danish motor ship Sally Maorsk or to respond to a call for labor at 8 o’clock this morning. It was the intention of the New Zealand Shipping Company to tranship cargo amounting to about 2,000 tons of seasonable goods and general cargo, from the Hororata to the Wingatui. As no labor was obtainable, the Wingatui had to make her departure for Dunedin this morning practically, empty.

HOW THE STRIKE BEGAH COMMUNIST OFFENSIVE UNION AUTHORITY DEFIED. SIGNIFICANCE OF JOINT ACTION. Following is the full cabled text of the letter with reference to the British seamens’ strike, addressed to the whole British Press by Mr F. C. Allen, chairman of the Shipping Federation and a member of the Port of London Authority. Reference to his letter was made in the Press cablegrams from London published last week. The letter reads: “I wonder if the public appreciates the true significance of the so-called seamen’s strike? Does it realise that it is really a reconnaissance in force in connection with the general Communist offensive by direct action against the existing order of society? Does it understand that the attempt-to hold up our maritime communications, which has failed in this country, but has mot with greater success in the dominions, is as dangerous in character as was the submarine warfare directed against our mercantile marine by our late enemies? I should be grateful if yon would allow me to recall the circumstances leading up to the present situation, in order that its real character may be made plain. British ship owners during the war agreed with the accredited representatives of the seamen 1 to set up a joint industrial council, the National Mantime Board, for the regulation of the conditions of employment of the numerous grades of men-serving afloat. The board represents 99 per cent, of the seamen. It has functioned with complete success for over seven years, during which period the industry lias been entirely free from seamen’s strikes—a record in which both side's may legitimately take some pride. IN HOPE OF'BETTER TIMES. “During the period the men’s representatives have secured numerous benefits for their lonstituents, and the rau-

clunery of the board lias always been available for the adjustment of difficulties and the removal of hardships in connection with the employment of seamen, whose wages as compared with pre-war days have been nearly doubled. In May, 1924, an application was put forward for a general increase in pay. The request was sympathetically considered by the ship owners, and, although tno conditions of trade in no way warranted. an advance, the ship owners, rather than jeopardise their good relations with those whom they employed, decided to discount the future and concede the demand. It was pointed out, however, by myself, as chairman of the ship owners’ side of the National Maritime Board, that the increase was only given in the hope of better times ahead, and that if this hope did not materialise ship owners would be unable to continue paying the advance. “ Since that time the condition of the shipping trade has steadily gone from bad to worse. That this is so is clear, as the 1 aid-up British tonnage in July, 1924, was 470,073 tons, and in July this year 777,179 tons. It became, therefore, essential to reduce costs in the hope that more ships might be brought into commission and more employment become available. After mature consideration tho National Maritime Board agreed upon a general reduction in tho wages of all ratings, to come into force on August 1 last, thus bringing tho pay back to the level of May, 1924. Tho agreement for this reduction was made on July 3 last. Between that date and August 12 not a word of protest came to tho ears of either side. The public knows the sequel on the latter date. As tho result of an agitation, which began in London, troubles developed in connection with the engagement of seamen in this country. A few days afterwards news was received tha.t the crows of vessels with the honorable exception of the navigating and engineer officers, in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa refused to take thoir vessels further.

IN ALL BRITISH SHIPS. “ What has created this situation? How is one to account for the simultaneous occurrence of so complete and sudden a change, both here and at the Antipodes, in the attitude of the men, who in many cases are old servants oi the various lines, who hqve hitherto borne excellent characters, and have earned the confidence and respect of their employers. It has been suggested that the men who have broken their contracts, though they have no possible justification, have some, excuse tor so doing, because the reduction of pay came into force during the_ currency of the voyage, they being ignorant of their liabilities to such a reduction—that it was, in fact, a furtive and sinister device employed by the ship owners to entrap the men. There is no shadow of truth in the suggestion. A special clause in the ship’s articles provides that anv agreed increase or decrease in pay shall take effect on the same date in all British ships wherever they may be, and the attention of the men is drawn to this clause at the time of signing on. “ As to the fairness of this arrangement, I can only say it was the subject of prolonged consideration by both sides of the National Maritime Board, and was finally adopted as the only method by which over any given period of time complete equality or treatment for all men under articles could be secured. But for this provision men who have signed on prior to the granting of an increase would be deprived of the advantage during the whole of a voyage, which might run to many months; and, conversely, in the case of a decrease, the same men would receive higher pay than their mates who happened to sign on later—a situation entirely repugnant to the ‘principles of collective bargaining. I may mention that prior to the present trouble there has been both an increase and a decrease, and a decrease applied under these conditions without any questions having been raised. . .

“ What, I repeat, has caused the present situation? The explanation is not so far to seek. It is to be found in the antecedents' ,of the persons who have conducted the agitation. Nearly all of them are avowed Communists. Very few of them are seamen. And this brings me back to the questions with which I opened this letter. Undoubtedly both the ship owners and the seamen are being used as the medium of an attack which is being delivered at the community as a whole, and I submit that the position is one which calls urgently for the immediate and serious consideration of His Majesty’s Government. Here we have a case of a collective bargain concluded between thoroughly representative bodies on each side, through well-tried constitutional machinery. Both parties to the bargain evince every desire to carry it out. But a third party, unconnected with either, places a ban on the agreement, and under the extraordinary license permitted to subversive agitation in this country is enabled to create a situation which has resulted in making one party to ihe bargain afraid to give effect to it. To put the matter bluntly, by setting up a system of gross intimidation. under the guise of peaceful picketing, men are daily prevented from offering themselves for employment or accepting re-engagement on their vessels at rates of pay they are willing to accept, and by similar methods men are being coerced into breaking their contracts and refusing duty in dominion ports, bhip owners have been able to cope with the difficulty here by adopting certain measures for the protection of their seamen, or the results might have been disastrous. “In the dominions conditions are widely different, and unless some corrective is applied the dislocation of maritime services will continue indefinitely. The signs and portents of these events are too plain and ominous to he ignored. The tactics which are being directed against the shipping industry to-day will to-morrow be employed against some other industry which is less prepared until the country is reduced to the unhappy condition which it is the aim of the Communist movement to bring about. “May I repeat that the principal means by which these persons are enabled to achieve their purpose is terrorism. Until, therefore, the executive Governments, both in Great Britain and the dominions, are able to make it possible for men to carry on their lawful '.vocations under agreed conditions without the fear of bodily harm and victimisation from persons often entirely unconnected with their industry, the present position of the country’s trade must grow steadily ■worse until complete paralysis takes place.”