BOARD of CONCILIATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10626, 15 December 1897, Page 6

BOARD of CONCILIATION.

SEAMEN'S AND FIREMEN'S DISPUTE. RECOMMENDATIONS DECLINED. TO GO TO COURT OF ARBITRATION. The Board of Conciliation for the Auckland Industrial District again sat yesterday in reference to a dispute said to exist between the Seamen's and Firemen's Union and certain shipowners. The members of the Board present were: The Rev. Geo. Burgess (chairman), and Messrs.. Lucas and Shera. Amongst the representatives of owners present were: Messrs. C. Ranson (Northern S.S. Co.), M. Niccol (Terranora), McGregor (Rose Casey, etc.). E. W. Alison (Admiral), etc. Messrs. Belcher and Marks represented the union. The Chairman, in opening the proceedings, said the Board were now prepared to hear if the employers cited were prepared to accept the finding, and sign the agreement, which had been drawn up and was ready tor signature. Mr. Malcolm Niccol said: I regret to say that the owners of the steamer which I represent have decided that they cannot accept the award you have arrived at, and consequently I am not authorised to sign the agreement. We feel that it would not be prudent on our part to bind ourselves to the payment of the increased wages and overtime for, so long a period as two years, unless all vessels alike engaged in the same trade, or capable of doing the same work, were parties to the agreement, and uniformity of conditions under which we compete thus assured. Ic may be said that oil-engine vessels do not compete with us, and that is true at present; but how do we know what may happen within two years or less? What is to prevent an oil-engine vessel worked on the family co-operative system entering into competition with us and completely cutting us out of our trade owing to their ability to carry cheaper beoanse of their more favourable wage-sheet? Clearly if therclis to be a standard wage it should apply to all engaged in particular trades or to all men of certain grades and qualifications. We think it preferable that the whole question shall be dealt with on its merits, and we feel confident of being able to establish clearly that viewed from every fair and reasonable standpoint we are already paying full wages and should not be called 011 to pay more. Mr. C. Ranson: My directors have considered the Board's recommendation with the following result The recommendations _in dealing with steamers of small class outside my company's vessels provide for far less onerous terms, so far as wages tariff and other matters are concerned, and we therefore cannot assent to these conditions applying to our boats while not applying to boats of a similar class, for wejshould be engaging to enrrv on our trade under conditions manifestly unfavourable. In some instances, too, the recommendations have gone so far as to exempt, under certain circumstances,' some vessels from any restrictions whatever, and in other cases have left other vessels an entirely free hand. _ Now, much as there is to admire in the principle which must have actuated the Board in so discriminating amongst the vessels cited, yet, unless that principle be fairly applied, it will, from our point of view, result in causing a gross injustice to my company. For, if my company were to be bound hand and foot by the terms of the agreement,and compelled to pay under any circumstances the fixed increased rate of pay, and to comply with the other onerous terms of the agreement, other owners might run boats of precisely similar class on infinitely more advantageous terms, and thus make a profit, while my company may actually be working at a loss. It is submitted, therefore, that all vesselsof the3inaller class, whether propelled by steam or oil should be put on the same footing, so far as pay and other conditions are concerned. The Boad will understand that while these remarks embrace all our smaller craft they are particularly directed to vessels acting merely as tenders, aud this for reasons given at length on the original enquiry. The term of the agreement, two years, seems very long, looking to the fluctuating nature of the business our vessels are engaged in. Thechangeduring the past eighteen months is so patent to all business men, that it speaks for itself, and if business does not pick up the only course open not only in my company's case, but in that of other shipowners, will be that the vessels must be laid up if the suggested wage tariff, etc., is made compulsory. The spectacle would then be seen of men willing to work on terms such as would enable the vessel to be run without loss, and yet the shipowner could not employ them for fear of committing a breach of this agreement, and so rendering himself liable to the consequences of such breach. Such a spectacle, neither the Board, the owners, nor the union would wish to see, and yet it would be unavoidable if the recommendations, as they stand were once assented to. I speak strongly upon this point, because there appears no means except by consent of the parties to make any variation. Section 18 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1894, is the only section dealing with variation as far as 1 can see, and my company would certainly not re>y upon its chance of being able to come t» some agreement with the union as to modification of terms. On these grounds my company is not prepared to assent to the agreement, and should these matters be sent to the Court of Arbitration, then I must remind the Board that I claim, as I did on the 28th August last, the right to withdraw the consent my company has given and the concessions it has made, and to appear before the higher Court as if our pro" posals had not been made. The Chairman said Mr. Ranson would distinctly understand in the event of the case going before the Court of Arbitration the whole of the evidence and documents would be laid before the Court. The Board could not withhold anything. Mr. McGregor: I may say on behalf of the owners of the Kiaora, Rose Casey, and Maori that I regret to have to state we are unable to assent to the recommendations of the Board. I stated at the outset that there was nothing in the existing state of trade, or the future outlook, to warrant any increase of wages being given. 1 wish to emphasise that statement now. The Board has exempted owners of certain other vessels since brought before ib, and these vessels are all carrying passengers and cargoes like ourselves. Evidently the Board thought there was no ground for interfering with those vessels, or the lines upon which they are run. v\ ith regard to the Kawau, regarding which vessel no recommendation was made,— The Chairman: That vessel is outside the reference.

Mr. McGregor; 1 wish to justify our refusal. As regards that vessel, I may say it is nearly as large as the Rose Casey, and much larger than the Maori, yet we are to be bound down to pay certain wages, and that vessel is not; yet the Kaw&u trades to further ports than we do. We claim that so far as the Rose Casey and Kawau are con* cerned, we would not, under such circumstances, be justified in agreeing to pay increased wages. However, we go further than that, for we say, even with regard to the lora ' we cannot sign the agreement binding us to pay higher wages. 1 do not dissent from the finding of the Board with regard _to those vessels. I think - it is quite just and reasonable, and should also apply to all vessels .-trading out of the port. of . Auckland, particularly L 1? 3 ! 0 l! th .'" ex ' eD river limits. 1 think this interference on the part of Mr. Belcher has been wholly unjustifiable, as all the wages paid were commensurate with the earnings of the vessels. As it is, the 10s increase of wages, if given, would not benefit the seamen at all. It simply would go to pay the amount of contribution required by the Union. Apparently Mr. Belcher will be quite satisfied so long as a branch of the seamen s Union is established in Auckland at the expense of the employers. I regret we cannot accept the recommendation of the Board in this respect. Mr, Niccol: Captain Braidwood intended to be present, but his vessel is not yet in from Coromandel. I know the mind of Gaptain Braidwood upon this matter, which is that he also would decline to sign the agreement.

Mr. Alison: It is quite unnecessary for me to say anything. The parties first cited before the Board have decided not to si£*n the agreement, therefore there is nothing for me to say upon the subject. The Chairman: As reference has been made to the Kawan, which vessel was brought before the Board under another reference, it may be well to inform you that there was no evidence produced on the part of those who applied to have this steamer brought before us. As the owner was distant from Auckland we had no facts whatever laid before us, In that case the finding of the Board is neither on one side nor the other. There is nothing' to prevent that vessel's case being brought before the Board at any time. As you have all decided with one accord to decline to enter into this agreement, the case as far as the Board is concerned is over. We have now only.to report that we have been unable to settle this dispute, and_ any further course may be decided upon either by the Board or the parties concerned., ■, •'[ ■* \ c-J Mr. Niccol: Can you give us any information when the Court of Arbitration will sit to hear this case ' - . . The Chairman It is impossible to state that without reference to the Judge.'" KN ; v Mi*. Belcher: It is not permissible to reopen the case, but you have permitted statements to ; be made which I:think require a few_ words in reply."- It appears to me the position taken up by the shipowners is one of the most uqcouciliatory that any person

could have adopted. They decidedly a j, I mitted some time ago they were quits Bt ® pared to abide by any decision arrived &tkr« the Board with regard to these ; other vessels. •' The inclusion of that clause added by Judge Williams in another case covet, everything shipowners can ask for. - If th« feel aggrieved in any particular case that clause provides the remedy. We have been accused of a want of conciliatory spirit, botl think te position we adopted throughout, and @ the manner in which we have given way on many points from what we originally quested proves that wo were quite' ready *o conciliate. If any one has shown want of conciliation it is certainly not the represent tives of the Seamen's Union. A statement has been made with reference to the increase # of 10s per month not being a benefit to the seamen. The statement made by M Uc.® Gregor regarding that is absolutely incorrect, but whether it was true or not it has nothing §$ whatever to. do with the shipowners how thill men dispose of the money they earn.' I»J p going to say I regretted that through ft. • action of the shipowners an agreement bu® not been arrived at, but now I am mot. pleased than otherwise that the case has ta go to the Court of Arbitration, for there iiW this to be said about that tribunal, that tin® matter cannot last as long as this iWw done, and whatever is done, there -will £?'■ no getting away from afterwards by Ysf quibble. I think our case is sufficiently good $f to establish what we ask here, and perhsw something better. If the shipowners waS M to go to the Court of Arbitration they can do so, and I trust the Board will carry oat it* duty in connection with referring this case to & the Court of Arbitration. > The Chairman: It is quite unnecessary toi request the Board to carry out any duty &' devolving upon it. I may point out it is not K one of the duties of the Board, of necessity ff 1 in any case, to refer to the Court of -Art;! & tration. The Board may elect to do so if j| desires, but it is also within the opinion of $' either parties to the dispute to do so. Mr. Belcher • I am simply saying it is co m . petentfor the Board to refer it. ■'$&>£s,' The Chairman: It is competent, but it fof not the duty. - Mr. Belcher: I hold the opinion, sir, thii it is the duty of the Board to refer the cue ft to the Court of Arbitration. [ The Chairman: I have no opinion 'm&% that matter but the Act of Parliament. • Mr. Belcher: Well. I may say if it is tt , f erred by the Board I trust it will be in such E a way that there can be no doubt whatevei regarding the issue submitted. ■ Mr. Niccol: Mr. Belcher is not correct as ' regards the attitude I have taken. I never .l' I considered there was any reason why an ail vance of wages should be given but as tie Northern Company had made certain offen >' to the men, my company also decided to agree to similar terms. All along I upheld ? the position that we were paying fair wa"es 'f and quite as much as we could afford. ° ' The Chairman We now close this sittin» of the Board, and I may say if yon dentil ? men had announced the fact some days ago '• that you were not prepared to accept thii ® finding you would have saved yourselves and 5; others loss of time, and the members of thet Board considerable trouble and anxiety. The Board then sat in private to consider the position of affairs, and decided to tend ?■ the case to the Arbitration Court. #