NOT WORKABLE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11307, 5 September 1922, Page 5

NOT WORKABLE

DISPUTES COMMITTEES SEAMEN OBJECT TO SHIPOWNERS’ PROPOSAL. “TIDDLY-WINKING TRIFLES.” The request of the shipowners for the setting up of disputes committees to discuss differences that may arise concerning seamen and firemen was strenuously opposed in the Arbitration Court yesterday by tho Seamen’s Union. No such provision exists at the present time. The employers suggested thaj the committee should deal with any matters arising out of or connected with the award, including questions relating to the manning of any vessel or the carrying of any class of cargo. His Homur Mr Justice Frazer said it was absurd that vessels should be held up through little disputes that might occur afany time. Time and again small differences of opinion hud occurred, and had been settled by force majeure or other means. Was there no other means of settling such small matters P Mr Young: We usually manage xo settle those little matters between ourselves. No disputes • committee will atop men from doing this or that. TIDDLY-WINKING TRIFLES. His Honour: If you have a disputes committee in which both sides have confidence, I think that_ would tend to atop a lot of these tiddly-winking trifles that probably cause more trouble than bigger matters. Mr Young said that the principle looked all right, but it would not work out satisfactorily. A dispute might arise at midnight as a vessel was about to leave port. It would be almost impossible to call the disputes committee together immediately, discuss the matter, and let the ship away. Personally, he would strongly object to being called out of his bunk at one o’clock in, the morning to settle a dispute. His Honour: Could it not be arranged at a meeting of the union that delays of that kind shall not occur and that a dispute shall be carried to the next port of call? CONTINUAL DISPUTES. Mr Young: If tho court was to institute the disputes committee we, should he doing nothing else but sit bn the disputes, committee, adjudicating on every claim put in by the nmon. The existence of the dause would cause an increase of about 100 per cent, in the number of disputes. Mr W. Soott (employers’ representative on the court): It seems to me this is the only large industry in which there is no such tribunal. The Wateraide Workers’ Union have their disputes committee. ‘Mr Young: Yes, but they are somewhat different from us. They are on the : spot when a dispute occurs, and they have only to raise a finger for a sitting to be held. I eay that if the employers’ proposal is pat into the •ward every claim made on the company for overtime will he referred to the committee. Mr Smith: Oh; that is absolute nonsense I His Honour explained the advantage of the disputes committee, and pointed out that matters of interpretation could be easily and cheaply settled by reference to the court. His Honour asked if the parties could suggest any improvement of the employers’ daim ‘which would prevent minor hold-ups. Mr Smith: One of the main points in our daim is in regard to manning. In Australia several disputes relating to manning have been settled by the committee. Mr Young: I don’t object to a committee to sit upon manning, but not to consider requests for reductions in manning. After further discussion the subject was dropped, and the court went on to discuss other matters.