WATERSIDERS’ AGREEMENT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 29 April 1937, Page 5

WATERSIDERS’ AGREEMENT

OBJECTION BY SEAMEN MODIFICATION OF CLAUSE REQUESTED [By Telegraph—Press Association] WELLINGTON, 28tli April. Owing to the indisposition of Mr Justice Page, the Arbitration Court to-day consisted only of lay members, and at the commencement of proceedings, Mr A. L. Montcith announced that the court would deal with matters in which complete agreement had been reached. Such agreements would be made into awards at the sitting of the Court in Christchurch to morrow, at which Mr Justice Xorthcroft would preside.

The first case called was the water siders ’dominion dispute, in which the parties had arrived at a complete agree ment, and the Court was asked to make the agreement into an award. However an objection came from the seamen, who were represented by Mr F. P. Walsh. He said that clause 40 of the proposed award was in direct contradiction to clause 58 o' the Seamen’s Award and it would have' to be modified.

Interrogated, he said that under the proposed clause, seamen who had driven winches on small vessels ever since the vessels had been at sea would be prohibited from doing that. Under Clause 53 of the Seamen’s Award, provision was made for its continuance. ' Mr Monteith intimated that the clause would have to be withdrawn if the award were to be made, otherwise special fixture would have to be made at the Christchurch sitting.

Mr Walsh said that even if Clause 40 were deleted, the seamen ‘ would not be eligible to perform the work which they had performed even since ships had been at sea. He asked for an alteration to the preference clause so that it should not affect the seamen as they were working at the present time. Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers ’Federation, said that Mr Walsh was asking the impossible.

Mr Monteith said that a memorandum that the deletion of clause 40 was without prejudice to the rights of the parties

would achieve the object. Mr Walsh said lie objected to the proforence clause going as it stood. The mater was left in the Court’s

hands to preserve the rights of the parties. If this is not possible, the Court is to consider the matter and make an appointment in Christchurch.