THE SEAMEN'S DISPUTE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1316, 20 May 1897, Page 30

THE SEAMEN'S DISPUTE.

SITTING OF THE ARBITRATION COURT. The Arbitration Court, consisting of His Honor Mr Justice Williams (president), Mc- Henry Thompson (representing the employers) and Mr J. R. Slater (representing the employees), met on Tuesday to consider the points in dispute between the Seamen's Union and the employers. The clauses in dispute were understood to be 5 and G, with reference to the officers of the Union being allowed on the vessels out' of working hours, and the employment of Union men before non-unionists, provided equally good men were obtainable. • Mr W. Jones (secretary of the Union) and Mr Hindmarsh (president) appeared for the Union, and Messrs A. H. Tarnbull (Tarnbull and Co.), J. Duncan (Levin and

Co.), C. "W. Turner (Blackball Coal Company) and J. H. Cock (Anchor line) for the employers. Mr Cock said the Union had really accepted certain portions of the award of the Conciliation Board, inasmuch as they had accepted the higher rate of pay recommended in the award.

Mr Duncan read correspondence written subsequently to the appeal by the shipowners against the decision of the Conciliation Board, showing that the Union had accepted the award of the Conciliation Board on the other points. In consequence of this a meeting of the employers and the officers of the Union took place. Mr Hindmarsh then said that the Union would not give way on those two points, but to show that they had given way on the other points he would put in the correspondence. One letter he had received from the secretary of the Union, pointing out that he had not given effect to the decision of the Board by paying his men an increase of wages. He had found that the other owners were doing so, and had given the increase at once. After discussion, Mr Justice Williams intimated that the Court would hold that the whole dispute was before the Court, and that as there had been an agreement dealing with certain of the matters in dispute, the Court would in its award take that circumstance into consideration. No doubt the Court would have to deal with the particulars of the dispute as they came from the Conciliation Board. They were of opinion that it would be inequitable to give any award dealing with the first four questions unless it was made part of the award that the owners were placed on the same basis as the other party, and if the award went in favour of the owners the extra wages which they had paid should be refunded.

Mr Hindmarsh said, considering all the circumstances, the Union would accept all the clauses except 5 and 6. This was satisfactory, and the President called on the employers to open their case. Mr Cock, in opening the case for the owners, said the issues involved in clauses 5 and 6 were most important and farreaching ; they were the very essence of industrial enterprise. The employment of seamen was so widespread chat it could not be restricted by the employers or men without the greatest inconvenience. If the number of available certificated seamen was further limited by bringing it down to the number of available certificated unionists, the field from which men could be obtained would be much less. If the Court made the decision that the preference of unionists must be given, then the employer would become the employee. He would also press the matter on the ground that the Union Company had had their dispute settled on the basis of the four points which the Union had agreed to, and with clauses 5 and 6 struck out. When a large corporation like the Union Company could gain such a decision, it was, in his opinion, not right to press the matter further against smaller employers, who were already being crushed out of existence by the largar Company. With regard to point 6, that any individual should be allowed to go on private property, it seemed absurd. The prescriptive right was not necessary, as the men could easily meet out of the hours of business. It would be dangerous to set up a right for these men to go on board j their vessels. Mr Turner drew attention to the altera- i tion of the Seamen's Act so that the men could give 24 hours' notice and leave. Mr Duncan said the objections he had were mainly of a sentimental character. If those two clauses were brought into operation they would engender a most unpleasant state of feelings between the employers and the men. After the luncheon adjournment, Mr Jones called

Thomas L. Mills, compositor, who deposed that he had been a member of the Wellington Typographical Union for 10 years. All the printers in Wellington were unionists, and the employers insisted on their belonging to a union. Mr Hindmarsh : Supposing the master printers were to employ non-unionists, what effect would it have on your Union ? Witness : It would aim a death-blow at our Union, and the result would be that the men would not be able-to obtain a fair wage. . 'To prevent such a state of affairs they were obliged to band themselves together. To Mr Jones : There was no objection to the officers of the Union interviewing the men during lunch hours. Wm. P. McG-irr, printer (secretary of the Wellington Typographical Union), gave similar evidence. To Mr Cock : The Union employed all the men that were at work in Wellington but one. Mr Cock : You employ the whole of the men, superior and inferior workmen together. Witness : A unionist is a good workman. The inferior men go up the country. Win, Jones, secretary of the Seamen's Union, deposed that he had never been interfered with by the officers of the Union Company or Captain Strang (their shore captain). There was only one man in the employ of tho owners bofore the Court who was not a unionist. Unionism had an undoubtedly beneficial effect on the men, and tended to increase tho discipline. To Mr Duncan: The men were paid overtime for their work out of the regular hours. Mr Hindmarsh and Mr Jones having replied for tho Seamen's Union, and Mn Cock and Mr Turner for the ?uasters, the Court reserved its decision and adjourned until 11 o'clock next day.

Ihe award of the Arbitration Court on the ' two points in dispute between the employers j and the Seamen's Union was given on Tues- , day as follows : 1

Mr Justice Williams: By consent of the parties the dispute before this Co art has been confined to sections 5 and 6 of the report of the Board of Conciliation. I will deal with each of these sections separately. Section 5 recommends that employers shall employ members of the Union in preference to nonmembers, provided there are members of the Union equally qualified with non-members for the work required to be done, and are ready and willing to undertake it when nonmembers are employed. In the award which was made by this Court in the case of the Bootmakers' Association at Christchurch some months ago a similar clause was inserted. The conditions, however, of their dispute differed in several material respects from those of the present dispute. In that case the several shops had been Union shops ; it had been recognised both by masters and employers that non-union men should not be employed. The position there at the time thac case came before the Court was the same as the position here with respect to the Typographical Association, which we heard of yesterday. That being the position, the employers asked the Court to go back upon it and to allow them to engage union or nonunion labour indiscriminately. That seemed to the Court not to be a proper thing to allow the employers to do. If the employers wanted to alter the existing state of things, it was assumed that the object of the employers in wishing to alter it was certainly not for the purpose of assisting the Union. The Court therefore decided that the employers ought not to be allowed to do that. But, on the other hand, the Court did not carry out the wishes*of the operatives and declare that the shops should be Union shops. All that the Court declared was; that union men should have the preference. Now here the circumstances are different. It has not been the practice in the boats of these ern-

ployers to employ exclusively union men. The employers have hitherto not discriminated between the union men and non-union men. The Union wish that that state of things should be altered. The Union say that it is necessary in the interests of the Union that it should be altered, and that the Union will be prejudiced if it is not altered. I think, however, that the burden cf proof that the Union will be prejudiced by a nonalteration of the existing state of things lies upon the Union. The existing state of things has been in existence for a considerable time past, and it has not been shown at all that the Union has been prejudiced in the past by the existing state of things. That being so it can hardly be assumed that a continuance of the existing state of thing will prejudice the Union in the future. If the employers behave in tho fixture as they have done in the past it cannot be said there is any evidence to show that it will prejudice the Union. It is suggested, however, that circumstances might arise which would cause the employers to take up a hostile attitude with regard to tho Union, and that they .could under the protection of the present system get rid by degrees of union men and fill up their places with non-union men. It is also suggested that they could under the pretext of want of trade lay up their boats for the winter and then start afresh in the summer and engage non-union men exclusively. The employers, however, in the present case, have not shown themselves hostile to the Union in the past, and it can hardly be inferred that, unless some unforeseen circumstances arise, they will show themselves hostile to the Union in the future. It is, of course, possible that such circumstances might arise, and the Court, while it does not think there is sufficient grounds shown for altering the existing state of things, yet thinks it right so to frame the award as to protect the Union as far as possible in the event of such circumstances arising, and in the event of the employers taking the attitude suggested. The Court, however, does not accept clause 5 as it at present stands. There is an additional reason why clause 5 should not be accepted, and that is this —however the dispute with the Union Company and the Union may at present stand, this at any rate is clear, that the union men are not working under clause 5. So long as the largest employer of this class of labour in the colony is not bound by clause 5, it seems unreasonable that smaller employers of labour should be bound by such a clause. For these reasons, therefore, the Court is of opinion that clause 5 ought not to stand; but at the same time the Court, in framing the substitutive clause, has endeavoured to provide for the contingency which is suggested on the part of the Union, that circumstances may arise which would cause the employer to take up a hostile attitude to the Union, and under cover of his freedom of contract take the opportunity of striking a blow at them. Clause 5, or the clause which the Court proposes to stand in substitution for clause 5, is as follows : —"The employers in employing labour shall not discriminate against members of the Union. The employers shall not in the engagement or dismissal of their hands, or in the conduct of their business, do anything, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of injuring the Union." The Court thinks that if a clause of this kind is_ inserted, if an employer should in the exercise of his rights take up a hostile position to the Union, and should do any of the things which it was suggested by Mr Jones he might do, that he would then be brought under the terms of this clause and would infringe the award. With regard to the sixth clause the Court has had considerable difficulty. It seemed doubtful whether the Court has any jurisdiction to allow a person who is not in the employ of a steamship owner, and between whom and the steamship owner there is no contractual relation, should have liberty to go upon the property of that owner against the will of the owner. As I have said, it seems to me very doubtful if the Court has jurisdiction to make an order of that kind, and whether, if such an order were made, and the secretary went on board and ''Jhe officers turned him off and summoned him for trespass, the award of this Court would be any answer. Whether, however, that would be so or not, it seems to the Court an extreme step to say that a man who is not a servant, and stands in no relation to the owner of the boat, should have an absolute right to go on board at any time outside working hours and stay there as long as he likes, and bo there, in fact, as free as if he were sitting in his own house. The Court does not see its way to give effect, therefore, to this clause 6. .The Court, however, thinks it right to recommend to the steamship owners that reasonable liberty of access, or facility of access, should be given. The Court will make such a recommendation, and will embody it in its award. The effect of that will not give the right as asked for, but it will operate as a recommendation only. I have very little doubt that the steamship owners will give effect to that suggestion. The recommendation will be as follows: —'' The Court recommends that the secretary of the Union be permitted access to the boats of the employers at reasonable times after business hours for the purpose of communicating with members of the Union, if ho conducts himself properly, and undertakes not to make use of his visits to the boats for the purpose of discussing matters in difference between the Union members and the steamship owners." It seems very natural that tho employers, while giving access to their boats to the secretary when on Union business, might object to their own property being used for purposes which are in fact hostile to themselves. There seems to be nothing unreasonable in the contention that when there is a dispute between ! the employees and the steamship owners the employee.? should discuss that matter in some other place than on the steamship owners' property. As for the other paragraphs —1,2, 3 and 4 of tho report of the Conciliation Board —1,2 and 3 will be embodied in the award. Paragraph 4, of course, is merely a recommendation which there would be no need to embody in the award at all. Tho award will take effect from tho Ist March last, and will continue in force for two years from that date. The custom in previous cases has been for the formal award to be drawn up later, and signed by myself in Dunedin. I suppose the parties will have no objection to that being done in the present case. Mr Turner No. your Honor. Mr Justice Williams: That concludes the business.