U.S.S. COMPANY'S SUPERANNUATION SCHEME.

Otago Witness, Issue 2914, 19 January 1910, Page 16

U.S.S. COMPANY'S SUPERANNUATION SCHEME.

OBJECTIONS LODGED. THE COMPANY’S EXPLANATION. There would appear to be some dissatisfaction in connection with the Union. Steam Shin Company’s scheme for superannuating officers on retirement. It was intended that contributions to the fund should commence this month, but apparently there is little probability of the fund being floated as quickly as was expected. The chief obstacle would seem to bo a prevaiing opinion that few ot the younger officers in the service will ever reach the retiring age. It is contended that sea life, ' with its worries, is not conducive to longevity; not to mention the hazard of shipwreck or chances of transfer. The young officers do not seem, therefore, unanimous in approving the scheme generally, while certain details are not viewed with satisfaction. A petition, largely signed, has been forwarded to the head office, praying that the scheme be not enforced. It is, however, believed in some quartern that a conference at Wellington will be the only means of arriving at a satisfactory understanding. The management was interviewed by a Times reporter on the 12th, andl put forward the following explanation: “ In 1905 a superannuation scheme was introduced by the directors of the Union Steam Ship Company for the benefit of the clerical staff, and the fund was started by a donation from the company of £20,000. In 1908 a request, signed by over two-thirds of the oompanys engineers ,{float, was made to the directors to establish a similar scheme for the benefit of the engineering staff, and subsequently a number of the officers asked that their branch of the service should be included. . The directors favourably considered the application and agreed to contribute the same subsidy as was given to the clerical scheme; whereupon communications were opened with Captain D. J. Watson (.secretary to the Merchant Service Guild) and Mr A. R. Hislop (secretary to the. New Zealand Branch of the Institute of Marine Engineers) as official representatives' cl the officers-and engineers resnectdvely. These gentlemen placed the • scheme—which- was on the lines of the scheme enjoyed by the clerical staff—before the company’s officers and engineers, and after a sufficient time bad , -seed to allow of thpee interested .’ing the same, conferences were heiu ai Dunedin between 1 teprceentatdv'es of tfu management of the company ’ and !■:.presentatives of the officers and eiwnIncluding Captain Watson and Mr

*A. R. His lop. Rules and conditions were adopted, the scheme was duly launched, and officers and engineers were then- invited to make formal application to participate in the scheme. A large,, number of, these have done so, but a few have lod-ged on--lections to the scheme, mainly directed to clause 6, which reads a 3? follows: _ . "'‘"’Members retired from the service owing to a serious breach of the regulations of the company or continuous misconduct not to 'be entitled to any refund. In the case of members;- retired on account of other reasons, th|| trustees to exercise their discretion whether to make or withhold the whole or any portion of any refund to such members. It appears to have been suggested to the officers and engineers that under this clause they run a risk of forfeiting then contributions in the event of their leaving the com.panv’s service under almost any circumstances/ The clause docs not bear' this construction, and the circumstances which would entail forfeiture would be extremely exceptional. In any case the representatives of the men afloat on the board of trustees are likely to be very chary in putting the rule into force seeing they number two fo one of the others. It is to be hoped that any misunderstanding there may be ■ will be removed, as it will be a matter for much regret if the great body of men who welcome the scheme have : to suffer by the action o a ew dissentients.”