STRIKE ON HIGH SEAS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17078, 29 January 1916, Page 11

STRIKE ON HIGH SEAS.

STEWARDS CO3IPLAIN OF FOOD

[Per Press Association.] AUCKLAKD, January 28.

A sequel to a strike of stewards ton the high seas was the appearance <ii> Court, before Mr Frazer. S.M., of nine young men, stewards of the steamer! Tainui. They were charged with combining on January 10, while on the high seas from London to Auckland, to disobey lawful commands or to neglect their duty, and also with wilful disobedience of lawful commands. It was stated for the complainant that defendants on January, 10 refused to ga on duty after 8 a.m., complaining that the food offered at breakfast was not good enough. Despite -the repeated requests of the captain they remained on strike till next day. • William Kershaw,.chief officer of the Tainui, said that a. sample was taken of the breakfast, which consisted thatday of porridge, stewed steak and mashed potatoes. The captain, after inspecting the food, declared it was all right, and he told the men they must return to their duties. They refused, declaring that the steak was burnt. Defendants served the passengers with breakfast before they struck. Thev then asked for their Board of Trade food allowance and orders were given that the request should be granted. . r William John Carpenter, purser ot the Tainui, said that the sample ot meat was slightly burnt, but was eatable. Witness tasted it. The potatoes and porridge were all right. Had) the meat been served to him ho would probably have asked for something else. He w-onld'-not'have enjoyed the. meat. Volunteers ' were called for the work of stewards, and passengers decided.to take the duty until the stewards returned. There were one or two complaints from passengers about food during the voyage; the cooking being at fault. In'itself the food was good. After leaving Cape Town witness had food cooked in another galley under the chief cook. A petition containing the signatures of a few third-class passengers was received protesting that they; had dry hash for breakfast while the" stewards had loin chops. It was i impossible to obtain pood cooks because l of the war. Two cooks deserted at i Cape/Town. The cook for the thirdclass passengers was sixty-four years of age: Defendants resumed duty on January 11. . William Brame, chief steward, stated that'the only complaints from passen o-ers came from a reservist on Janu-1-ary.lO. The passengers did not complain until the stewards struck and went to them for sympathy. ' Mr M'C4regor said that complaints, as to food were rifo throughout the voyage. When defendants asked for bet- ! ter food it was apreed that they should i'havo what was left by the second-class I.passengers instead of what the thirdI class passengers left. After thre© days j the concession was stopped because the third-class passengers objected to the I stewards being better fed than they I were. Had the least tact been used there would have been no trouble. A lady passenger who gave evidence said there had been several complaints throughout the voyage by passengers regarding food. The Magistrate said it,was apparent that not much tact had been employed, otherwise the .matter could have been settled. It was evident that the men had ample, grounds for complaint. There was no doubt that the. food had been bad, and on the morning in question it was worse than usual. At the same time the men should not' have .struck. The company was probably not altogether to blame in view of the difficnlty experienced in obtaining cooks. If defendants bad not been on board a ship he would have been inclined to let them go with a. warning, but a breach of discipline on board ship was more serious than one on land. Defendants were ordered to pay costs.