DEADLOCK CONTINUES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7928, 11 October 1911, Page 1

DEADLOCK CONTINUES

COASTAL VESSELS LAID UP WATERSIDE WORKERS NOT TO ACT. Xho deadlock between tbe owners of the smaller coastal steamers and the mates of the vessels continued yesterday. Considerable interest was evoked by the Press Association message from Invercargill, published yesterday, stating that: “Thoro was no doubt that, unless the officers' demands aro acceded to, the mates of tho Onion Company will go out also."

Captain D. J- Watson, secretary of tho guild, stated that it was not contemplated, at tliis junction, to ask tho Union Company’s officers to leave their vessels. In reference to tho trouble in discharg. ing tho Futiki at Timaru, Captain M atson stated that tho guild had not appleached either tho Seamen's Federation or the Waterside Workers' Federation. The secretary of tho Timaru branch of the Waterside Workers’ Union had telegraphed to him stating that tho men had declined to discharge any of the coastal steamers until the guild dispute was settled; also, that tho Waterside Workers’ Federation had been informed and asked to instruct all unions of the Timaru workers’ action.,' The message concluded: “Do you approve?” Captain Watson, after conferring with members of the guild, replied: “We are not requiring the assistance of anybody. We do not want anybody to strike on our account." Tho executive of the Waterside Workers' Federation met at Wanganui yesterday morning, and after a lengthy sitting it was decided to advise the unions to continue work at present. Tho Labour Department has been investigating the circumstances connected with the mates leaving their ships, in order to ascertain whether a breach has boon committed of the strike clauses of the Conciliation and Arbitration ActThe secretary of tho guild stated that there has been no breach of tho Act by the mates or the guild.

STEAMERS REFUSE CARGO. TRESS ASSOCIATION. DUNEDIN, October 10. In consequence of tho trouble with the officers engaged in the coastal shipping in the North, the steamers Victoria and Ulimaroa would not accept any cargo here to-day'for transhipment at northern ports. The Breeze is due here to-morrow, and if the officers adhere to their previously expressed intentions they will then leavo the vessel. The local agent for tho vessel, however, expressed the opinion that the officers were in duty bound to remain on tho Breeze until she reached her home port—Lyttelton. The Breeze has no cargo to unload here, but there is a fair quantity waiting hero to be loaded for northern ports. If the mem come ashore the Breeze will have to b laid up in Dunedin.

MEN RESUME WORE. WHARF WORKERS' ACTION ,NOT UNDERSTOOD. TIMARU, October 10. The wharf workers did not start this morning. A meeting was held when they assembled, and it was decided to cease work as a means of helping the steamer officers to a speedy settlement. This decision was to apply to all steamers. The Putiki and Kia Ora wore affected. A telegram sent to the Merchant Guild brought a reply of thanks for sympathy, but that snen action was not necessary at present as a settlement was in prospeot. A reply to a message to the same effect sent to the Union Federation was that they did not understand the union's action, and advised them to, go to work. Work was therefore resumed at 1 p.m.

COASTAL OFFICERS’ STRIKE 1 (To the Editor “N.Z. Times.”! Sir,—The position of affairs as between the Merchant Service Guild and the enx. ployers cited recently before the Arbitration Court has been before the public in the papers to a somewhat limited extent, and, to my mind, has been thus presented in a somewhat biassed form, the bias being in favour of the owners. Wo have so far made no endeavour to right ourselves in the eyes of the public, nor to contradict any misrepresentations which have been made by the other side, intentional or otherwise. We are seamen and as a natural consequence of our segregated mode of life unaccustomed to speaking or writing addresses to the public, and but for the fact that the press has seen fit to use its power to back up the specious statement of the Employers’ Association. secretary (for the voice is easily,recognisable) and thus endeavour gratuitously to put us in the wrong and alienate sympathy from us, we should probably not have made any attempt to influence the public or auyoue else by effusions in the papers. As matters stand I claim the right to he heard on the other side.

The first argument is directed towards trying to prove a strike to be in pro gress. I ask if there is any law which can force a man to work tinder condi* tions which he considers unjust and unbearable? Can any law force a man to work for more than 400 hours a month, as some of our members have done in the past? The law says that, twentyfour hours' notice shall terminate the agreement under which we aro employed, and although we asked the Arbitration Court to render the position of an officer less precarious and to give him the right to a month's notice, after he had been in the service a sufficient period to be considered a permanent employee, we failed entirely to get any relief in that direction. I ask therefore if wo arc not quite justified in leaving our work (which has to be done under such sweating conditions) ;n the legal way, after having given the twenty-four hours' notice prescribed by law? The second contention or the “Times" leader writer is that we are guilty of a want of British fair-play in. not accepting the award of the court, aud incidentally working twenty hours out of twenty-four. There is another British motto which runs, “Britons never shall be slaves," which applies still more pertinently, to my mind, to this case. The reiterated misstatement that we dragged

the employers to the court is a specimen of the consistent efforts made by the secretary of the Employers’ Association to misrepresent us and to place us in a false light. We met in conference at the Conciliation Council, and on our side made some concessions, whereas on their side they made none. They offered us a set of counter proposals, which to . a groat extent consisted of a reference to the clauses of ours by number with the curt remark of “objected to.” The claptrap concerning the guild’s moral right to act as it has done wo have heard before, although it may bo new to the public. But it may be asked on our side whether the moral aspect of the matter has been greatly considered by the court when it decreed that an employer should have a legal right to work a man twenty hours out of twenty-four without extra payment, although all those round him and who are for the most part working under his direction are paid overtime. The sailors, firemen (if. they are working), lumpers. Customs officers. Government shipping office officials and deck cargo surveyors, etc., are all getting extra payment, but the unfortunate individual who is responsible for carrying out of the work does not. In any case we are not concerned with sapihistical arguments which ar.e being used to bolster up the employers’ case. We are convinced that our demands are reasonable and logical, and we are Justified in using any decent means to obtain just aud reasonable remuneration for our work. The “Times' " remarks on the desirability of the Arbitration Court as a factor in settling industrial disputes is a question which I leave alone, but I can agree at all events , with the concluding sentence of the article that the position in regard to the utility of the court and the Act should be closely examined, and I state most emphatically that, 'as the Hon. Mr Millar stated in the House some days ago, the present constitution of the court is such as to greatly nullify the working of an Act which is "ntrinsically good. The judge seems to me to be biased, or trying to get clear of the arbitration business without resigning his Supreme Court position, and the assessors are, by their entire ignorance of nautical matters, unfit to form a correct opinion on maritime concerns.—l am, etc., T. W. SPENCE. October 10th.