MARINE ENGINEERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11247, 27 June 1922, Page 6

MARINE ENGINEERS

WAGES ANB CONDITIONS DISPUTE BEFORE COXCILL\TION COUNCIL. MINOR POINTS SETTLED. Tho industrial dispute which ha* arisen between the Union Steam Ship Company and the Wellington branch of the Australasian Institute of Marine Engineers regarding wages and conditions of employment war? diseased by a Conciliation Council yesterday. The Conciliation (Mr -W. Newton) presided, and the assessors were Messrs J. Smith. U. L. Gillies, and W. G. Smith (for the Union Company) and Mr T. R. Wallace, Captain F. A. Mclndoe, and Mr D. H. Starrock (for the union). EMPLOYERS’ PROPOSALS. The schedule of wages demands pre* rented by the employers included the following monthly scale for chief, second, third, and fourth engineers respectively, on the basis of the nominal horse-power of each steamer: Between SO and 100 n.h.p., £27, £2l, £l9. 100 and under 150 n.h.p., £2B, £2l, £l9. 150 and under 200 n.h.p., £29, £22 10s, £l9 10s. 200 and under 250 n.h.p., £3l, £23, £2O, £l7. 250 and under 350 n.h.p., £33, £23, £2O, £l7. 350 and under 450 n.h.p., £34 10s, £24, £2l, £lB 10s. 450 and under 600 n.h.p., £36 10s, £25, £2l, £lB 10s. 600 and under 800 n.h.p., £3B, £25, £2l, £lB 10s. 800 and under 1000 n.h.p., £4O, £26 10s, £22, £l9 10s. 1000 n.h.p. and over, £42, £27 10s, £23 £2O 10s. All under the ranks of fourth engineer, £l4 10s per month. In regard te hours, the employers proposed that tho time of duty in port or at sea, or partly in port and partly at sea, should be not more than eight hoars in a day, exclusive of meal hours; port duty to be worked between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. It was asked that overtime should he paid for at the rate of time and a half; the rate per hour to be ascertained for the purpose of overtime payments by dividing the monthly rate by 200. UNION’S COUNTER-PROPOSALS. The counter proposals filed by Hit union contained the following wages demands for chief, second, third, fourth, fifth and lower enjpneere: Vesels under 35 nominal horsepower, £36 6s. 35 to 50, £37 18s. 50 to 100, £4O ss; £33 Ss; £3O. 100 to 150, £4l 17s; £33 19s; £3O. 150 to 200, £43 9S; £35 lie; £3O 16s; £2B- - to 250, £46 11s; £37 2s; £33 19s; £27 13s; £24 10s. 250 to 350, £49os; £37 2b; £33 19s; £29 4s; £24 10b. 350 to 450, £52 18s; £3B 14s: £33 19s: £29 4b; £24 10s. 450 to 600, £56 ls ; £4O ss; £33 19s; £29 4s; £24 10«. 600 to 800. £59 ss; £4O ss : £36 &; £3l 12s; £24 10b. 800 to 1000, £63 4s; £42 13s ; £36 6s; £3l 12s; £24 108. 1000 and over. £66 7s; £44 4a; £37 18s; £33 19s; £24 10b. Chief engineers on vessels carrying only three engineers to receive pay. ment for overtime service the same at the other engineers of the vessel, at the prescribed rates of their class Chief engineers on veesejla carrying more than three engineers to receive an increment of 10 per cent, upon rates shown above, such increment being in satisfaction of all claims for overtime. If frozen cargo is earned additional engineers to be employed at the following rates: —The senior engineer to be paid £1 less than the second engineer, the junior engineer to be paid £1 less than the third engineer. If only one engineer is employed the higher rate to be paid. If no frozen cargo is carried, but only ship’s stores in passenger ships, the engineer to be paid at the same rate as the third engineer. The employees also sought a 44-hour week, with a maximum of 8 hours per day. In the case of vessels carrying two engineers only, it was asked that the time of duty should not, without such payment, exceel 12 hours per day at sea or 56 hours per week in port and at sea combined (lees eight hours for each interval granted in the week to the engineer), making a 48-hours week. Time and a half was asked for over, time work, with a minimum of 3s 6d per hour. A throe years’ term was asked, as against one year proposed by the company. EXEMPTIONS. Appearing on behalf of tho Shipowners’ Federation, Captain Petersen applied for the exemption of small vessels from the award. Hitherto, he said, they had been covered by a separate agreement. After some discussion the matter was referred to the court. The various clauses of the claims and counter-claims were discussed seriatim in committee, but settlement was reached on minor points only.