CONDITIONS OF CREWS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11302, 30 August 1922, Page 6

CONDITIONS OF CREWS

THE SEAMEN'S DISPUTE LENGTHY EVIDENCE BY MASTER MARINER. METHOD OF THE COURT. Further evidence as to the pay and conditions of work of seamen and firemen in home waters was heard at the Arbitration Court yesterday. His Honour Air Justice Frazer presided, and with him on the bench sat Air W. Scott (employers’ representative) and Air M. J. Reardon (for the employees). Air W. G. Smith represented the Union Steam Ship Company and Air W. T. Young the Seamen’s Federation. The evidence taken yesterday related mostly to the conditions upon the Union Company’s vessels. HOURS OF LABOUR. Captain A. W. Bold, master of the steamer Ivomata since February, 1919, examined by Air W. G. Smith, said that tho provisions of the clause affecting the hours of labour in port would make for better working of the decks as far as the ships themselves were concerned. They would then be able to work the hands, say, the day before, and could give the men who had a watch from eight to twelve the night before a morning off on the day of departure. They could then work the hours between 6 and 8 a.m., in getting the ship ready for departure, without payment of overtime. To Mr Smith: The work could he done without overtime, and the men’s eight hours for the day would not be exceeded. YOUTHFUL SEAMEN. With reference to the proposal in the union’s claims that an ordinary seaman under 21 years of age should be paid as much as an ordinary seaman, witness did not think that this would fit in with the requirements of the shipping. For instance, if a boy had been only a year at sea lie could not be made an A. 8., and if he were paid that rate there would be no advantage in carrying an able seaman. He could not get an A.B.’s wages until he had qualified by service on coastal vessels for two years, and in other cases for three years.

He had nothing to do with the Employers’ claim; but considered that conditions needed some adjustment. This was necessary in order to gain more elasticity, and would make for more efficient handling of the ship. “You do not desire to express an opinion in regard to the other cases?” —No; that is so.

Cross-examined by Air Young, who asked if he Were in favour of a reduction in wages for seamen, witness stated that he had given evidence of the working conditions of the ship only. Air Young: You nave gone into the box to give evidence in this dispute, which involves questions of wages. Are you in favour of the wages of the sailors being reduced £4 9s per month? His Honour pointed out to witness that he was entitled to refuse to answer questions only if he were not capable of replying to them, or had not formed an opinion. Witness: I have not formed an opinion. It is a question between the employer and the employee. THE COURT'S CUSTOM. .

On the question of wages, His Honour remarked: “The court works very largely on a system of comparison. We have got a sort of mental standard as to the conditions and rates of pay. We have our general basio'wage. We work on that largely, and, admittedly, that involves a certain amount of comparison. We must adopt that system, otherwise we should be at sea; we would have no set of fixed principles. I do not want to shut down <Jn any cross-examination that is legitimate; in fact, we have allowed things to go into cross-examination that were rather irrelevant, perhaps; but this is rather different from other questions.” Mr Young continued to press witness for a reply, remarking-that'it was impossible to conduct a case in the court if questions were to he shelved in such a manner. “That is not shelving the question,” was the opinion of His Honour. EXCLUDING THE BOY. Witness stated that deck officers and engineers had a casa before the court now. Asked if ho was in favour of them working any time during the 24 hours, he replied that, as far as the master was concerned, he worked any time during that period already. To another question concerning the paying of an ordinary seaman’s rates to a boy, witness replied that he had never carried a boy. “What is the use of examining a witness like this?” asked Mr Young, apparently in disgust. Air Smith pointed out that the union proposed to exclude boys under seventeen years of age. The practice was that hoys above that age were treated as ordinary 6eamen and came within the provision. In answer to a question by His Honour, witness said that hoys over eighteen were signed on as ordinary seamen. “DEPARTING FROAI PROCEDURE.” To Air Young once more, witness said that the half-day off affected the men when the ship was sailing late at night, and they were given four hours off in the afternoon, when they would lose the services of the men who were away during the afternoon. He thought that the proposal of an eighthour day and a six-day week was. a reasonable one. There were now three watches—four hours on and four off. “The employers are coking that when at sea, deck-hands should work eight hours at any time during the twenty-four.”—Yes; but this is not the same as the present award. “In this application the employer is departing from the recognised custom of every mercantile marine in the world?”—-I don’t know. Further evidence was taken in the afternoon, and the court rene till today.