CLAIMS OF SEAMEN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18533, 18 October 1923, Page 10

CLAIMS OF SEAMEN.

MANY POINTS DISCUSSED.

QUESTION OP PREFERENCE.

POWERS OP THE -COURT. [by telegraph;-—press association.] WELLINGTON, Wednesday '■ Important matters in connection with the seanvrn and fireman's dispute were discussed before the conciliation council to-day. .'•■.'..: - In regard to the fumigation of the men's, quarters, the shipowners suggested that the quarters .be' fumigated, cleaned, and painted once in 12 •months.* The union suggested. every six months. No agreement was reached on the question of discharging ashes. • . Mr. W. T. Young, who represented the men, stated that he could not understand why the preference clause should be . taken away from ' them when it was given to waterside workers, and cooks and stewards. • ■ '• Mr. W...G. Smith (for the employers) You have the clause here. Mr. Young: We have. not. We got Sir John Findlay's opinion on it, and that is not a preference clause at all. _ Mr. Hammond: There is no such thing in New Zealand as compulsory unionism at all. Mr. Justice Sim has laid it .down that the employer is the sole judge of qualifications, so thai even after the award comes into force an employer has his stand. :-•; ~ Extent of Preference.

Mr. Young: I think that Mr. Hammond has no conception of exactly what compulsory unionism is. I got it in 1905 for the Tramwaymen's Union for the first time in New Zealand, and it provided that if a man was to 1 join a union withm one month to obtain employment, which must be regular, he would, be granted preference. Mr. Hammond: The Court has no power to grant it. Mr. Young: Yes, it has no power to do lots of things, but you see it does them.

<Mr.>, Hammond: Whenever an agreement comes before the Court, containing a preference clause, the Court draws attention to the fact, and does not' accept any .responsibility. > The Conciliation Commissioner: As a matter of fact, the matter , came before the Court of Appeal, and it-decided that the Court had no power torinsert a compulsory preference clause. Mr. Young: Tho' Court can only say to the employers that they shall give preference to unionists. .

Mr. Hammond: But not absolute preference. "■■';

Some discussion took place over the definition of the term " departure." Mr, Young argued that " departure " meant unmooring a vessel for her voyage. The employers asked for the addition of the words "or in case of roadsteads, from the time when sh©; completes her loading or unloading," but the men's representatives agreed to the Court's definition which read, " departure means the time when the vessel unmoors or weighs anchor from her last loading or discharging berth, whether she immediately proceeds to sea or 'not.""''.;.

Definition of V Arrival." The clause regarding " arrival" was agreed to as follows:—"The time when a vessel is finally moored at her place in any port, bay, river, or roadstead, where cargo, coal, mails, or passengers are to be shipped or unshipped. A vessel shall not be deemed to have arrived in port when she is, for any reason, moored or, anchored prior • to finally proceeding to her loading or discharging berth in port. If the vessel is anchored at her usual discharging berth in a roadstead, and is prevented by bad ; weather from discharging or "loading," she shall not be deemed to have arrived until the. work actually, commences;" ■-;■- • v 7.*"'... Other definitions agreed to were: " At sea," which means the time from the departure to the arrival :in ;:" men's time,": - from arrival ;to departure; moored includes "anchored," but not " where anchored through stress of weather, fog, conditions of tide', waiting for orders, or quarantine, or other legal-re-strictions;" "home port " means "port in New Zealand or Australia, where a seaman first joined his ship;" "a day," except where otherwise provided, means, "from 12: midnight to 12 midnight." / Mr. Young stated that the clause referring to the Disputes Committee was not the same as in the award, nor was it similar to the'- procedure which had been agreed upon with the men at; the recent conference. .- H$ thought that ; the decision of the Disputes Committee should bo binding, and there should :be no appeal from it. Mr. Hammond pointed out that the owners.-:; sought the right of appeal for either side. At present the decision of the committee was really that of one man, The chairman agreed to delete all reference to procedure from the clause.