SHIPS' GANGWAY DUTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18814, 15 September 1924, Page 9

SHIPS' GANGWAY DUTY.

DEFINITION OF A " BOY." APPEAL TO ARBITJRMION ODURi: MAGISTRATE'S RULING DISPUTE. ■ The question of night-watchers and gangway duty on ships in port was involved in an. appeal heaid by th« Arbitration Court on Saturday/' The Seamen's Union (Mr. Hohadea) 'appealed against the decision, delivered on-June 6, by Mr, 8,,. <£■•• bv&w,/]'tin/ which he dismissed ah application for the imposing of a £10 penalty on the Union Steam Ship Company, Limited (Mr. R. MoVeagh), far ai alleged breach of the seamen's award. The dispute concerned a boy, George Wilkinson, employed" on the Arahuraj and the allegation was that on the night v, oi" December 23-24 ; , 1923, the respondents ordered Wilkinson to keep night watch and to attend at the gangway while the vessel was in Auckland, contrary to clause 39, sub-clause A, of the award, Wilkinson did the duty ordered. , The magistrate gave jndgmont for the company, holding that no principle was involved. He described the matter as paltry, and said he could not imagine * why the proceedings were taken. Grounds of the Appeal.. The union appealed on the grounds that the magistrate had .drawn a wrong conclusion in finding that Wilkinson was promoted to the grading of ordinary seaman on December 23, and was not a "boy" on that date. Mr. Holmden contended that a principle was involved, and that the matter was far from paltry. The Court had. legislated that no boy should do night or gangway duty, for the very good reason that. it waa a man's job, t.nd at times demanded prompt and effective : action; He referred to the instances of seamen falling off wharves and gangways at night, ana said that daring the fortnight preceding the original action three . men were drowned in Auckland Harbour. According to the ship's .articles and Wilkinson's discharge the boy was at least not promoted til* December 24. ' The only" evidence as to promotion on December 23, the vital, date, was that., given by the first officer, and he was not v entitled by law to alter the rating of a seaman. Wilkinson was paid only boy's wages for December 23, bni from 8 jj.ni. to midnight he was paid overtime at the rate at which ordinary seamen would be paid. Those were the four honrs *hat the dispute was about. Contention by Bespc-ndenis. Mr. McVeagh contended that Wilkinson was not a boy within, the meaning of the award. In the award, a seaman ■?.: was denned as not including boys under 17, and it therefore implied that no person over 17 was a **boy.*' Counsel / was in agreement with his learned friend that the purpose of tha award was to have a responsible parson of matureyears in charge of the gangway. Nowhere in the Shipping and Seamen Act was there any Emit of age for able fleamen, ordinary seamen or boys. The intention of the award was that whoever s was placed on gangway duty, whether he was an A.8., 0.5., or under scone other category ■ should be at least 17 years old. Wilkinson, who was oyer 17, had stated that when the Arahura was at Gisborne he was told he was shortly to be promoted to ordinary seaman. His Honor said the essential evidence, the official log, was not produced to tiie magistrate, ; - -... ' '.' Mr. Holmden said the question, of age was fmmateriel. Anyone could be rated 38 a boy. His Honor: J. know they have boys over 17 years of age. . ' After further argument, the Ctenrfe reserved its decision.