SEAMEN'S AWARDS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18387, 1 May 1923, Page 9

SEAMEN'S AWARDS.

STRANDING OF THE RIMU.

QUESTION OF EXTRA WAGES

NO PENALTY IMPOSED.

Judgment has been delivered by the Arbitration Court in an action brought by the Inspector of Awards against the Northern Steamship Company, claiming to recover £10 as penalty for a breach of the Cooks and Stewards' (Northern Steamship Company) Award. The defendant's steamer Rimu became stranded in tnt Manukau Harbour for more than 24 hours on January 25 and 26, 1923, while en route from Raglan to Onehunga, and defendant failed to pay extra rates to thb stewards as provided by clause 25 of the award. The Court found that " to strand " had been defined as to run on a beach or to ground in a river or harbour. W here it was the recognised practice of pilots to take a vessel as far as possible on one tide, and then allow her to take the ground, and proceed on her voyage on the next tide, such a grounding was not a stranding, because it occurred in the ordinary course of navigation. That was not the case with the Rimu, and her taking the ground on the occasion in question was actually and in law a stranding. ; The Court was of opinion that there had been a' breach of clause 25. but as the inspector had intimated that the action was brought to " obtain an authoritative interpretation of the clause and that he did' not press for a penalty, no penalty would be awarded. . Amendment of the Award. The Court has issued'an order pending. the '■ Cooks ; and Stewards' (Northern Steamship Company, Ltd.) Award, as from April 26, 1923, by adding to 4 clause 25, which deals with the payment of overtime when a ship is wrecked or stranded lor more than 24 hours, the following words — If a vessel grounds in a tidal harbour or river, and only requires to lighter cargo in order to proceed to the wharf, such grounding shall not be deemed a stranding within the meaning of this clause." The application _ for the insertion of the additional wording was made by the Northern Steamship Company. " " * . In a memorandum the President, Mr. Justice Frazer, says the Court had satisfied itself that the sub-paragraph now added was inadvertently omitted. Overtime in a. " Main " Port. The Court has given its decision in the case of the Inspector of Awards against the Kaipara Shipping Company, in which plaintiff sought to recover £10 as penalty for a breach of the Kaipara and SellarsAllen Shipping Companies' Cooks and Stewards' Award. It was alleged that the defendant did during December, January and February last employ certain men Dayon d the hours prescribed in the award and failed to pay for such overtime in accordance with clause 2. The Court found that work commenced in a port at 5 a.m. was subject to overtime payment to 7 a.m., but only where a vessel had been in a main port overnight. Time worked in nort between 6 p.m. and the time of departure was to b« regarded as overtime, but only where a vessel had been in a main port overnight. In other cases clause 3 (b), which did not provide for clock hours, governed the number of hours to be worked. " Main port'.' had no technical meaning in awards. It was not the* same thing as a " principal " or " home " port. The evidence showed that in the past it had been the practice to regard Helensville as the only main port. ' The • Court v could not , say whether Dargavllle or any other port, oxcent Helensville. was a main port., but. settling the question in accordance with custom, would say that Dargaville was not a mam port. No breach of the award would, in the circumstances of the case, be recorded and no penalty awarded. I ' ; , An Application Refused; Judgment has been delivered in respect of an application by the Northern Steamship Company to amend 6 (a) of the Cooks and Stewards' (Northern Steamship Company) Award. Applicants desired the deletion of the words "or , any " before the word " Sunday " in the first line of the clause, and the substitution vof the words " before 5 p.m. on a." The Court stated that, except by consent of the parties, it could only delete something that it had .no intention of inserting, or insert something that it had no intention of omitting, at the time it made the award. The application was refused.