CHARGE AGAINST SHIPPING COMPANY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19261, 27 August 1924, Page 2

CHARGE AGAINST SHIPPING COMPANY.

ALLEGED BREACH OF AWARD. ACTION BY SEAMEN'S UNION. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON. August. 25. A prosecution was brought by the Wellington branch of the Federated Seamen’s Union in tho Magistrate's Court, to-day against Messrs Richardson and Co., of Napier, for an alleged' breach of the seamen’s award. Defendants were represented by Mr J. F. B. Stevenson. Tho union, which was represented by Mr W. T, Young (the local secretary), alleged that on May 12, at Port Ahuriri. Richardson and Co. renewed the articles of agreement of the steamer Hum, the wages on the new articles commencing from May 13 (inclusive). In .lime, when the sailors and firemen were paid their wages for the days worked in May from the 13th to the 31st (inclusive), the defendants refused payment, for 19 days at 30 days to tho month, as required by clause 1, paragraph (d) of tho award, paying for 18 days only. Outlining his case, Mr Young said that on May 12 the articles of the steamer Kuru. owned by Messrs Richardson and Co., expired, and on that day the crow was signed off the old articles and signed on tho new articles, the wages on the articles commencing from and including May 13. On tho old articles they were paid wages to and including (May 12. 12 days being paid for at the rate of 30 days to the month. At the beginning of June, when tho wages for tho balance of May on the now articles were payable, the defendants paid tho crew merely for 13 days at 30 days to the month in place of the pay for the 19 days at 30 da vs to the month. Payment for 19 days at the rate of 30 days was refused by tho company. The Magistrate: You say they were paid a day short?—Mr Young: Yes. Mr Young added that the union contended that refusal to pay for the additional day was a breach of the award. Tho pay was at a monthly rate, and broken days must be paid at the rate of 30 days to (ho month. In the present case there were two broken periods, one of 12 days and one of 19 days. The first period was on tho old articles, for which the crew were paid at 30 days to the month, and tho second period was on tho new articles, in which there was a period of 19 days in May. and those 19 days should have been paid for at tho rate of 30 days to tho month.

His Worship: It your construction is right it means that tho men got more than a month’s pay for May?—Mr Young: That is EO Mr Young went on to say that the Labour Department had been advised of tho details and was asked to institute proceedings against the company for an alleged breach of the award. The union received a reply to the effect that the department had referred the matter to Napier. On June 26 the union received a reply from Napier to the effect that on making inquiries ‘‘it was apparent that a genuine mistake had boon made by the accountant. A cheque for tho balance would be immediately forwarded to the crew.”

Tho ilagistrato: Has the cheque been paid?—Mr Young: I am unable to say. Mr Stevenson: The cheque, which was for £2 12s 6d, was paid as the result of a compromise. It is not an admission. On behalf of Messrs Richardson and Co.. Mr Stevenson made a preliminary objection to the plaint note, which, he said, did not describe the defendants. Tho facta as outlined by Mr Young wore substantially correct. Counsel described it as a pinpricking case and an attempt to get what was known some time ago as “two days’ pay for • one.” “That is what is behind the whole prosecution, and it has frequently been held,” said Mr Stevenson, “that for a month’s w r ork a man should receive a month’s pay.” The articles expired on May 11, and tho actual signing took place next day The men at ono and the same time signed off and on. At one time when tho men signed off and on the same day they claimed two days’ pay, and legislation was made to obviate the trouble. He contended that a “hrokeij period” meant a broken period of service or employment, and in effect there was not a broken period, because they signed off one minute and were engaged again the next. It was continuous service. A man should not get more than a month’s pay for a month’s work.

Mr Page: Tf they had signer! off in February would they have got a full month’s pay? Mr Young: They would ha ve got 12 days at 50 days and 16 at 30 days. Mr Stevenson: A representative of Messrs Richardson and Co. says (hat in February tho men got paid the full month’s pay. Mr Page (to Mr Young): Yon contend that for the purpose of holidays the service is continuous, but for the purpose of pay it is broken?

The magistrate, after hearing a lengthy argument, reserved his decision.