MARINE ENGINEERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8365, 27 February 1913, Page 3

MARINE ENGINEERS

NEW ZEALAND CONDITIONS IMPROVEMENT SOUGHT BY INSTITUTE. With reference to the endeavour of the New Zealand Institute of Marine Engineers to obtain the same rate of wages and conditions of work as prevail for marine engineers in Australia, Mr T. Wallis, local secretary, explained the position yesterday as follows: •‘ln 1908 an agreement between the Union Company and the Institute was arrived at regarding wages and conditions. The wages asked for at that time were not obtained, a small increase only being granted, the agreement being a compromise. One of the reasons advanced by the management of the company for not acceding to the Institute’s claims was that they might compromise the members of the Commonwealth Steamship Owners’ Association, of which they are (members*. Previous to this agreement, when engineers had to leave their ships through illness, etc., the chief and second engineers were allowed pay and board money for one month, but although seamen and firemen got paid when they came ashore under similar circumstances, junior engineers got no consideration. To do away with this, the Institute agreed that all engineers should come under the provisions of the Shipping Act. “This has been taken advantage of in a manner never anticipated by the Institute. The company say they highly appreciate their engineers. (Veil, they should do, for the management must know how much they are indebted to their engineers f6r keeping things going. But if the _company do appreciate the engineers, they have a very poor way of showing it. It is a matter beyond dispute .that the company have not kept faith with their engineers in more instances than one. Let two suffice: There is a breach of faith over the Australian award. Two years ago the company gave a written promise that the engineers’ accommodation in several boats would be improved, but up to the present nothing has been done. The_ accommodation remains the same. How different the treatment served out to the fireman I In several vessels passenger accommodation has been taken out and fitted up for them. This is not to say that better accommodation for them was not necessary. But why ithe difference in treatment? The company can answer if they wish. Then the company talk of loyalty. Should it be all on one side? And how can they expect loyalty to continue if you are going to be taken advantage of because of your loyalty ? “To show how loyalty pays: An engineer in the Union Company’s employ injured himself while at sea. He could have gone ashore at a foreign port, but by so doing he would have put the company to considerable expense. Rather than do this ho remained at his post, risking permanent injury in the meanwhile. Eventually his vessel reached Australia, and the articles expired. He thus had no legal claim on the company. However he has to get medical attention and is some time under the doctor’s hands. How much did ho get for his loyalty to the company? Just what the law allowed him—nothing. Again, engineers permanently appointed, if they leave their boats on transfer or are taken ont at any time, their wages continue. But there are engineers who have been in the Union Company’s ships for six months, and have been brought ashore at half-an-hour’s | notice, and received no payment, not even a day’s pay in lien of payment. Of course, the individual cannot object too strongly, or his chance of getting on the permanent list is nil. “To go back to the 1908 agreement. This was for three years, 'and expired, in 1911. In March of that year representatives from the institute met the company and endeavoured to obtain better conditions! The increased cost of living was pointed out, and how wages in other employments had increased, but without much effect. The company again at this interview said they did not want to do anything- that would compromise the Commonwealth shipowners, and asked the institute if it was not the same institute as in Australia, and could we not have the same conditions in New Zealand as in Australia? On this being answered in the affirmative, the company’s representative deplaned that they preferred to have it that way. On it being pointed out to them that once the institute did this we would 1 no longer have the privilege of making onr own agreement, the renly was, in spite of this, they much preferred to have it that way. Then they offered to give an increase in wages of £2 per month to fifth engineers, numbering about fifteen, and £1 a month to sixth engineers, numbering about eight, and signed an agreement for three years —other engineers nothAs an alternative the 1908 _ agreement was to continue for eighteen months, or until the award ot the Federal Arbitration Court was given. The first proposition could not be ao-. cepted, so there was nothing left but to accept the alternative proposal. The engineers’ representatives undoubtedly understood tnat the said award would bo adopted, although this is now repudiated by the company. But any fairminded man, on nearing what took place at the interview, could do nothing less than say that the company implied that the award would be accepted. If this was net understood by the engineers in the company’s employ, why should they have waited patiently for two years? The engineers felt themselves bound in honour to accept f.fois award after what had passed. The difference between the U nion Company and the institute now is the obtaining of the conditions of the Australian award for New Zealand engineers. Even this was modified to a great extent by the institute in their endeavour to obtain an amicable agreement. . “ The principal point at variance is the recognition of the eight-hour day. This the company will not concede, although they have given it to the seamen and firemen. But in place of the eight-hour day the company wish to impose a fifty-six-honr week before overtime can be counted, and a limitation of sixteen hours a month—that is, a £2 payment irrespective of the hours the individual may have worked. The fifty-six hours would wort out very to the engineer, for he could be worked all night and knocked off the next day, thus proven ting him exceeding the fifty-six hours’ limit—a very nice arrangement for the company. The company have given the ■ eight-hour day to the seamen and firemen. Why do they withhold it from the engineers? Surely those holding responsible positions are entitled to this privilege. The eighthour day is recognised throughout Australia and New Zealand. Wby should

it he withheld from those that go to sea, who are already deprived, by the manner of their avocation, of many social advantages enjoyed by those ashore? The wages that the engineers are receiving are very little better, if any, than they were twenty years ago. According to the statement of Mr *»• 1Young, secretary of the seamen s Union, the other day, the engineers saved the position for the Union steam Ship Company in 1890. If thaf) 18 ®° none should know it bettor than the Union' Steam Ship Company. .In 1»98 the engineers by a ballot consented to a reduction of wages, and that reduction remained till about 1897, when the wages were raised to the original amount. Since that time there has been very little increase, with the exception of the rise in 1908, so the Portion is that although wages have increased to a very great extent all round the engineers of the same class of ships have had very little increase indeed, notwithstanding the rises granted to those in other occupations and the increase in the cost of living.