SHIPPING DISPUTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24634, 16 June 1941, Page 7

SHIPPING DISPUTE

ADVOCATE'S ALLEGATIONS ARBITRATION COfIRT APPEAL UNION NOT REPRESENTED (P.A.)' WELLINGTON, June 14. When an appeal by the Ship Owners' Federation against the. decision of a disputes committee on the question of the division of watches on the. Port Whangarei, which operates under charter to Holm and Go., came before the Arbitration Court yesterday, Mr Bishop, advocate for the federation, said he had been asked by the respondents to tell the court why they were not represented. He did not propose to do that, because it would amount to contempt of court. He said it was indicated to him two or three days ago thai it did not. matter what action the appellants took, the union would not appear, and as far as the union was concerned, it did not matter what the court did. Last Tuesday the employers made an offer to the union that might have settled the case, but were still awaiting a reply. If the conditions offered had been accepted the appeal would have been withdrawn. It had neither been accepted nor refused. Finding on arrival in court that the union was not represented, Mr Bishop added, he asked the registrar to get in touch with Mr F. P. Walsh, the union representative. The registrar communicated with Mr Walsh on the phone. Alleged Abuse tb speak to him," Mr Bishop said, "but before I was able I met with a tirade of abuse. I say that with the knowledge that the press is here. Before I could explain what it was I. proposed to put to Mr Walsh, the receiver was hung up in my ear." Mr Bishop said he thought he would Have been justified in leaving the matter at that, but he communicated with Mr Walsh again and asked if the offer had been accepted or rejected. "A bowlderised version of the reply," Mr Bishop said, " would be that it did not matter what we or the court liked to do about it; we could please ourselves. I asked the registrar to call the case, and I.have explained the position to the court." If there was. any suggestion that there might be some approach, or< some settlement of what was in dispute, the federation was not anxious to proceed with the appeal, but so far it had not heard any suggestion of that kind, Mr Bishop added. The federation was not anxious to proceed with the appeal in the absence of the respondents. . H indicated his willingness to have the appeal stood over until the court inquired why the union representative did not appear. ■ The court decided to go on with the hearing, and. Mr Bishop then explained that the previous operator of the vessel had entered into a special agreement with the union concerning the division of the, watches by which the men had two hours on duty and six hours off, and that practice had been upheld by the Disputes Committee when -the employers tried to get it altered into two hours on and four off, which was in accordance with the award.

Objection by Judge Mr Justice Tyhdall objected that the court was being called upon to settle a dispute over something definitely not in accordance with the award—something quite l illegal. Mr Bishop's position was quite clear, but that of the court not at all clear. .Mr Bishop: The pointy is whether the conciliation commissioner was justified in the decision he made on the illegal agreement.. It is not our wish to bring up the question of the legal'ty of the agreement. His Honor: .1 am not questioning the good faith of the parties, or even,saying that the practices are not desirable in the interests of harmony in the industry; but it is difficult for this court to decide whether it should settle a dispute of this nature. Mr Bishop: Neither party the practice of making agreements disturbed, but we want the court to adjudicate on the arrangement.