ARBITRATION COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 28 March 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

SEAMEN'S WAGES

(KY TELEGHAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION.)

WELLINGTON, March 27. In asking ior a ieuuction in the wages or seamen, Mr \v. U. Snath, lor the companies, drew attention to tne tact tnat tne demands or tne men weiw made during the currency of the war, when every snip was urgently neeueu' and an acute shortage or labour existed. These were tne only reasons why such excissiveiy high rates oi wages were given, xn tact, hign rates of pay were obtained from tne employers by force majeure, and under duress, not because the latter considered the rates reasonable.

Mr Smith said the shipping industry was one in which the interests of tne general public, and particularly oi the primary producers^ must be considered by tne Court to greater extent, probaoiy, tnan in any other industry tor wnicn tne Court hxed tne rates oi wages and conditions of employment, l'he position or the primary producers had, no doubt, been fully mid before tne Court m other cashes. Tne seriousness of the situation, which had arisen owing to a world-wide slump in tae price of our primary products, was so widely known that any furtner comment at that juncture was unnecessary. It would, however, be apparent tnut anything that could be done in the direction of reducing the charges on primary products should be effected in the interests of the community as a whole. That could not be done unless the working costs of ships, wjtiich were now about two and a third times higher than before the war, were reduced.

Speaking as to the reduction in the efficiency of the work performed, us compared with, trie war. period, the' fig.ures showed that while wages had increased, efficiency had decreased. Mr bmith referred to the "go-slow" policy, which, he said, was most pernicious and attended by serious results, as it injured the public and the employers. Mr Smith asked the Court to substitute a "no discrimination" clause for the present preference clause, one reason being that the preference clause had been greatly abused by the waterside unions, especially of late years At the present time the Wellington union demanded payment in advance of the sum of 50s before a man was allowed to join the union, this apparently being made up of 5s entrance fee, 25s for a year's subscription in advance, and 20s for levy. The demand for a levy was clearly improper under the terms of the existing preference clause, as a levy could not, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, be classed as a contribution. Mr Smith urged the Court to deprive the union of preference. Moderate men only belonged to the union because under the preference clause they had to. They did not attend the meetings even "stop-work" ones. The control' of the union had thus passed into the Hands of men of, to put it mildly, very advanced views, who ran the union for the purpose of advancing their revolutionary theories, and made levies upon the members which they knew to be illegal. They enforced these payments by means of threats of exclusion from work, as had happened quite recently in connection with the Wellington union. After the address, evidence was called.