COASTAL STEAMER TROUBLE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume L, Issue 175, 24 October 1917, Page 6

COASTAL STEAMER TROUBLE

EFFORTS TO RESUME SOME OF ■ THE SERVICES. (United Pbess Association.) . , WELLINGTON, Oct. .23. Efforts are ■b'eiDg" made to arrange for some* f of the:smaller, vessels iivhich have been-^ddle.-for-the last 'few weeks to resume- their--running, and it is expectsed that "the Tnvercargill will' be enabled to get-away to-morrow. KOTARE SAILS. - . .DIJNEDIN, This Day. The -coastal- steamer Kotare, after being laid up tabdut a month, obtained a crew to-day and sailed for Timaru and •"Wellington,;. She had a fuß cargo, which •was "loaded; a iortnight ago. NUMBER OF MEN IN A WATCH •-'.'-■ QUESTION.

ARBITRATION COURT'S (DECISION

The following is a fuller report 'than that alrealy published of the judgment of the Court; of Arbitration regarding its interpretation of certain matters in dispute in- the existing agreement between the Shipowners' Federation and the - Seamen's . Union. It is from the IFost:—•"'..-■: In regard, to the question concerning' (hours of >wOrkr, the answer of the Court is that it seems that the employer

has- the right, at sea, to work seamen any eight hours in any day. The discretion aJfev£ed - to" the employer must ."be exercised-reasonably, so that the seaman; is- allowed proper intervals for rest and meals,: except in cases of emergency. Concerning clause 9 '(a): "When a vessel arrives in port-and leaves again the same . day, -or when she arrives and leaves within' eight hours between 5 p-m. and"7 a.m., the ship may, at the. option of- the (master, be treated as at seal" 'the "Court held ttoat it seamen lave peridrmed two hours' work before arrival in- porti and are required to per -form-two-hours' duty after departure, the balance of the eight hours can be •worked in port at any time as required by-the master," -without payment of overtime. ; v. •.:•-•" The -next question was: When a ■■vessel ■•■arrives*in-a 7 port 'and a seaman has worked, • say,- four- hours at sea foefore arrival; can the balance of the eight hours - be;-worked : at any time between 5 p.m. and 7-a.m.-(meal tours as--may.,be Tequired by the employee.? The Court answered 'the question in the ' affirmative,- intimating that it saw nothing in the contention of the union that the eight hours should be completed immediately after the arrival of the vessel in -port.; . The Court also,decided that there was no,reason why; in such,cases as that of the Pateena (leaving -port at 12.45 p.m.), part of- the men should not be sent to. diimer at noon and the rest oi the men at 1 p.m. In the-absence of sufficient information, the- Court declined to answer the question asking if all the men could be reruired to- take, their dinner after the departure of the ship. • . _ . "It- must-.be understood/' the. judgment proceeds, "that the above answers, are not..binding, upon the Court in the event -of -any- of the. questions arising hereafter for-decision in any proceedings formally -before -the Court.. We think it necessary -to make this reservation ,as-we.; have-not had the benefit o£ any.. argument trom the workers' point of view. ... "The Court further requested to. decide if, "where the manning, scale of the Shipping and Seamen Act allows small, vessels to carry less than six. able seamen, it is essential to the safety of such •vessels that two deck hands should be employed on deck at the same time in addition to the" officer in charge"? I'With regard to this question, we think it is open to doubt whether we have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. As, however, the members of the Court have been appointed a Commission of Enquiry, under section 34 of the "Regulation of Trade, and Commerce Act, 1914, -we have the right to enquire an • 1 report as to the necessity and advisability of the exercise.by the Governor of the power conferred upon him under section 25 of the Act, of modifying the provisions of" the industrial agreement under consideration, and, we think, is sufficient to justify us in making the ( following observations :-—There is nothing in the agreement, or in the Shipping and Seamen Act, requiring that there should be two men in a watch in addition to the officer in charge. The question, however, •whether or not, in order to secure safe navigation of small coasting steamers, such a provision is necessary. "It was shown by the evidence of several captains, who" have been engaged in the coastal trade for periods varying from ten- to thirty years, that, the custom had. always been to have one man only on Seek in addition to the officer on the bridge. Before the making of the industrial agreement now nnder consideration, although nominally two men were in the watch taking two hours on and two hours off. Since the agreement was made, in effect the .same practice has continued, the only difference being that the one man is on watch for the whole night. The harbourmaster of Wellington, speaking with a

Jcnowledge of the practice above mention ed extending over the last twenty years, - stated that in his opinion the pi'actice 'Was'a perfectly safe one, having regard to the nature of the service in which the steamers concerncTd were engaged. : ''II there- had been any reasonable ground fo.r requiring at least two men on a watch, it was to be expected that some stipulation to the effect would have been embodied in the agreement, but cot only was this not so, but we find that Mr W. T. Young, the secretary of the Union, on the 12th June, 1917. writing to one of the employers apropos of some alleged irregularities-in the working, of the agreement which had been entered into in March, 1917, states that when at the conference on the agreement, "It was stated to him and bv other representatives of the union that under the eight-hour day the shipowner could please himself whether he worked watch, and watch at sea or day work, and he' could also please himself whether he worked two or three vf&tchs, and whether he had one, two or three, or more men on a watch.' 'ln face; of the evidence given before us and -of the above statement of W. - Yoimg we .cannot believe that the union has any substantial ground for its claim, and there should be at least two men in a watch at sea in addition to the officer on' the bridge. Owing to the failure of the union to attend at the hearing and to submit any evidence or arguments for onr" consideration, we have been compelled to base our conclusions on the evidence and argument's submitted by the employers only; but, basing our - jridgmeht upon the material before us, we have no hesitation in stating that, in our opinion, it is not essential, in order to ensure the safe navigation of the vessels ,in question, and the consequent security of the passengers and crews on such vessels that the two deck hands should be employed on deck at the same time in addition to the officer in-charge. The above is the opinion of the majority of the Court,"