POVERTY NOT PLEADED

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11296, 23 August 1922, Page 5

POVERTY NOT PLEADED

SHIPPING COS.’ FINANCES NOT RELEVANT IN ARBITRATION COURT EVIDENCE, “PROBING FOR INFORMATION From time to time during the, hearing of the seamen’s and firemen’s dispute, now before the Arbitration Court, His Honour Mr Justice Frazer has interrupted the cross-examination of witnesses on tho ground, that probing for information relating to the financial ability of shipping companies and the activities of the P. and U. Company is irrelevant. Twice yesterday argument took place between the bench and the union’s representative concerning the admissibility of such evidence. , Mr W. T. Young, secretary of the New Zealand Federated Seamen’s Union, predicted in the court yesterday morning that when the present series of maritime disputes was disposed of there would probably be a marvellous revival of trade. Hia Honour: I hope so; it is needed. Mr Young brought up the question of finances of the Richardson Shipping Company, and remarked that the witness under examination had made no reference to finance. His Honour said that the court was not concerned with the financial position of the shipping companies in the case under consideration. They had to consider what was a fair rate of wages for the particular work involved. In view of evidence already given in other shipping disputes ,he assumed that none of the companies proposed to plead financial poverty as a reason why the union’s demands should not be granted. Mr Smith: "We are not pleading poverty. Mr Young: Will the general manager step into the witness-box and say «oP

Mr Smith: Never mind. I represent the company before this court, and I say so. A QUESTION OF DIVIDEND. Mr Young: Mr Smit'h, I think, also made another statement in the waterside workers’ dispute—reported in the Napier “Daily Telegraph”—that for tho first time in thirty years his company had not paid a dividend. Mr Smith: That is not true.

Mr Young: I propose to establish that that same year the corn sy paid a dividend —10 per cent, on ordinary shares, and 5} per cent, on preference shanss.

Mr Smith: We did nothing of the kind. Hi® Honour said the oourt could not concern . itself with a. newspaper statement or go into the finances of the company. Mr Young: I take it from that that the court will concede the claims of the union.

His Honour: Ob, no! Mr Bishop said it had been stated that certain companies had manipulated their finances. He did not wish that statement to he misunderstood as applying to the companies represented before the court.

His Honour: It is simply a question of transferring some of their reserve funds and excess earnings into capital. Mr Young: It was done by the Union Company in 1914. Mr Smith: I think you are out in your dates, Mr Young. Mr Reardon: If I were to express an opinion I would say the Bank of New Zealand is another case. . • Note how their shares have been growing in value during: the last few weeks. SALE OF THE MAPOURJKA. At a later stage Mr Young received a reply from another witness that the Anchor Company had recently acquired the Mapourika from the Union Company, renaming her Ngaio. Mr Young: Was that by agreement or by direotion?—Nothing more than an agreement. Was it merely an alteration in management and in toe colour of the paint?—lt was a direct sale from the Union Company to the Anchor Company. Hia Honour said he could not see what hearing such questions had on the case. Mr Young: Here is a manipulation, I submit, Your Honour. His Honour: I don’t think that necessarily follows. The oourt, he continued, waa concerned with fixing reasonable wages and conditions, and he did not see that it mattered what company owned the vessel. The decline m trade was world wide, and the companies were not pleading that they were poverty stricken. It mattered not to the court whether the sale was made or not. Mr Young: Nor whether the F. and O. combine own certain of the vessels! “If it is established that what the seamen have got during the war is not os favourable iag the increases given to the men in other industries,” asked Mr Young, “will the court be agreeable to improve the seamen’s conditions so as to make their conditions equally favourable?” His Honour: Your idea of what is favourable and the idea held on the other side differ, Mr Young, and we might differ with both sides. It is all a matter of comparison. We know the seamen’s conditions differ from those of workers ashore, hut we have to make comparisons. It would!, be impossible to answer your question with a direct “Yes” or “No.” Mr Young said that the employer, while admitting he did not plead poverty, contended that trad© was so bad he was compelled to lay up certain vessels. It was all done for a purpose. The union did mot care how many ships were laid up. The companies did mot take into account the number of men thrown out of employment 'as a result. The men should bo paid proper wages and given proper conditions. His Honour: That is what we are here to determine. But we have to take into consideration whether trade is brisk or slack, and look at the question from every angle. If unduly high wages caused the companies to put vessels out of commission, that would have a very direct - bearing on the members of your union. Mr Young: The men in our organisation are not prepared to take that responsibility. I have already predicted that as soon as these maritime disputes are out of the way trade will revive. I 'ask Your Honour to keep that in mind. His Honour: I sincerely hope so.