SEAMEN'S AWARD

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11653, 18 October 1923, Page 2

SEAMEN'S AWARD

NO AGREEMENT YET DIFFERENCE ON QUESTION OF DISPUTES COMMITTEE. YESTERDAY’S DISCUSSION. With the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr AY. Newton) presiding, the representatives of owners and seamen met at the Conciliation Council yesterday afternoon to continue discussion of the dispute concerning the new award. Messrs W. G. Smith, W. H. G. Bennett, B. L. Hammond, and Captain R. A. Peterson for the employers, and Messrs W. T. Young, T. F. Anderson, W. R. Clarke for the men, were present. MEN’S QUARTERS.

The shipowners proposed that the men’s quarters should be fumigated, cleaned, and painted once in 12 months. The union suggested that the period should be six months. Mr Young said cleanliness was next to Godliness. There had been few complaints when the quarters were cleaned every six months, but there were many now that the period was twelve months. He remarked on the 1918 epidemic, and stated that he saw muck two inches deep under bunks. Mr Smith: ’'Well, we pay a man to clean up. and ho is not doing his work.” Mr Young: "The man is not under proper supervision. He should be under the engineer’s control.” DISCHARGING ASHES.

The question of discharging ashes was also discussed at some length. Mr Smith said the companies had tried to get the men to clean fires at the end of the watch and immediately discharge ashes, but the men said they were too tired at the end of the watch. The case from the -other side was that when fires were cleaned at the beginning of tho watch, the balance of the men had to get to work to bag them, haul them up, and stack them for discharging In the meantime, the fires had to bo kept going, and to do the two things was an impossibility, and was productive of more trouble with the engineer when the steam was going down than anything else. Mr Young suggested that the fires should he cleaned at the beginning of the watch, and the ashes should remain in the stokehold until tho end of the watch, when overtime should be paid for hauling* up and discharging, instead of for discharging only, as at prev sent No agreement was reached.

There wa.< some slight dispute on the subject of clothing, Mr Young holding that if the dress worn by the men was incidental to the ordinary clothing the companies should supply it. Mr Smith pointed out that masters, officers and stewards had to supply their own uniform, but the men’s representatives strongly objected, and the matter was left over. PREFERENCE DEBATED.

The clause regarding preference (No. 3-1) stated that "if any employer shall hereafter engage any seaman who shall not be a member of the union, and who within 14 days after his engagement khall not become a member of the union, and remain such member, the employer shall dismiss such worker from his service if requested to do so by the union, provided that there is then a member of the. union whose record is good and who is equally qualified to perform the particular., work required to be done, and ready and willing to undertake the same. "The provisions of the foregoing clause shall operate only if and so long as the rules of the union permit any seaman of good character and sober habits to become a member of the union upon payment. of an entrance fee not exceeding ss, upon a written or verbal application without ballot or other election, and to continue a member upon payment of subsequent contributions not exceeding 10s per quarter.” "TAKEN AAV AY.” Mr Young stated that he could not understand why the preference clause should be taken away from them, when it was given to the AVnterside AVorkers and Cooks and Stewards. Mr Smith : A r ou have the clause here. Mr Young ; AVe have not. AYe got. Sir John FiVidlav’s opinion on it, and that is not a preference clause at all. Mr Hammond: There is no such thing in New Zealand as compulsory unionism nt all. Judge Sun has laid it. down that the employer is the sole judge of qualifications; so that even after the award comes into force the employer has his stand. Mr Young: I think, Mr Hammond, that you haven’t a conception of exactly what compulsory unionism is. I got it in 1905 for the Trainwaymen’s Union, for the first time in New Zealand, and it provided that if a man was to join the union within one month to obtain employment which must be regular, he would be granted preference. "NO POWER/’ Mr I-lammond : The court has no power to grant it. Mr Young: Yes, it has no power to do a lot of things; but, you see, it does them. Mr Hammond: AVhcrever an agreement comes before the court containing a preference clause the court draws attention to the fact and does not accept, any ixv sponsibility. The Commissioner: As a matter of fact the matter came before the Court of Appeal, and it decided that the court had no power to insert a compulsory preference clause. Mr Young: The court can only say to employers that they shall give preference to unionists. Mr Hammond : But not in absolute preference. DEFINITIONS ACCEPTED. ftonie discussion took place over the definition of the term “departure,” Mr young arguing that "departure” meant the unmooring of n vessel for her voyage. The employers asked for the addition of the words "or, in the case of roadsteads, from the time when sho completes her loading or unloading,” but the men’s representatives agreed to the court’« definition, which read:— Departure means the time when a vessel unmoors or weighs anchor from her last loading or discharging berth in a poll, whether sho immediately proceeds to sea or not.”

The dau.se regarding arrival was agreed to:— "Arrival means the time when tho vessel i«s finally moored at the placo in any port, hay, river, or roadstead, where cargo, coal, mails, or passengers are to he shipped or unshipped. A vessel shall not be deemed to have arrived in port when she is for any reason moored or anchored, prior to finally proceeding to her loading or discharging berth in a port. If a vessel is anchored at her usual 4is«ba*'gin(x berth in a roadstead and is prevented by bad weather from discharging or loading, elie shall not be deemed to have arrived until work actually commences.” OTHER AGREEMENTS. Other definitions agreed to were:— "At sea” means the time from departure to arrival. “in port” means the timo from arrival to departure. ! "Moo-red” includes ‘'anchored,'* but not where anchored through stress of weather, log, conditions of tide, waiting for orders, or quarantine, or other legal ; restrictions. I "Home port” means the port In Now I Zealand or Australia where the seaman | first joined the ship. " Wages” inel lidos overtime payments. "A day,” except where otherwise provided, meant* from 12 midnight to 12 midnight. IHSi*U TES COMMITTEE. Mr Young stated • that the clause referring to the disputes committee was

j not the same as the award; nor was it I similar to the procedure which had been agmed upon with the men at a recent conference. lie thought that the deJcisirnoJ the dispute.- committee should be binding, and Ihat there should be no appeal from it. Ah- Hammond pointed out that the owners sot ght the right of appeal for either side. At present the decision of the committee was really that of one man; the chairman. It was agreed to delete all reference to procedure from the clause. Mr Young then stated that under the clause the owners had the right to increase the amount of machinery to reduce the manning of u vessel, giving the union notice when it wished the scale reduced. The logical conclusion of this was lhat when the union wished the manning scale increased it should be able to notify the owners and bring the matter before the disputes committee. Mr Smith: Of course these .ships are manned in exc-cers of requirements already. Mr Hammond: In other words, you want +he union to take the place of the legislature and sav what the manning tralo shall be. Mr Young: The union won't fix it; the disrates committee will. "OLDER AND HARDER.” AX? Anderson: There should be something of the kind. You all know, as a vessel grows older she becomes a harder ship. Mr Hammond: The legislature hasn't siied the manning scale with regard to the age of a ship. Mr Anderson: It's fixed the manning scale cn an entirely fallacious basis. Mr .Hammond: Well, the only way to get it changed is to approach, the legisSooner than agree to this, said Mr Smith, they would cut out the provision for manning altogether. Mr Young: The manning scale isn’t u maximum; it is a minimum. And it is quite right for ns to trke any action along constitutional lines for the scale to be increased. You can’t reduce it any further. And what we want is a point of equity. Wo may have very su bofa nti a 1 re as o ns. Mr Smith : The court cannot empower someone else to do what it cannot do itself. He thought that the court could scarcely empower a disputes committee to increase the manning scale. No agreement was reached and the dispute was adjourned until next week.