ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3574, 12 September 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

THE SHIPPING DISPUTE. WELLINGTON, September 6. In the Arbitration Court to-day Mr T. O. Bishop made his address on behalf of the Ship Owners’ Federation. He said the case was a simple one. There was, he said, a world-wide slump in trade, which had affected shipping. The causes of the slump were outside cur control, but we must adjust our. affairs to the altered, conditions. Certain gains in wages and conditions were obtained by the seamen by negotiation in 1920. It was believed that conditions then existing would continue for the period of the agreement, and the problem for the court was to determine what adjustments were necessary to enable the shipping industry of this country to be carried on at a cost which the country could afford to pay; at the same time, having regard to the necessity of paying a fair wage to those employed and providing a fair return for the capital invested. The employers did not attack the principle of an eighßhour day, but overtime aboard ship was different from overtime ashore. A great deal of overtime money had to be paid on ships without extra hours being worked, therefore the rate should not be a high one. He submitted that in coastal shipping sailings after 5 p.m. should be permitted. Mr Smith, on behalf of the Union Company, replied to Mr Young, whom he complimented upon the manner in which he had conducted the case, which was an ob-ject-lesson to advocates generally. The new proposals of the union making drastic alterations in existing conditions, such as the daily rate of pay, the inclusion of boys, and crew’s attendants, the demand for a manning scale in excess of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act, could not be made as a counter-proposal in view of the ruling of Mr Justice Sim some years ago. His Honor said he had been under the impression all along that there had been cross citation in the dispute. Mr Smith pointed out that such was not the case, the union having merely brought up counter-proposals. He referred in detail to the 'conditions of work and pay, and concluded by saying that the evidence given on behalf of the employers showed that a substantial reduction in wages was absolutely necessary if the producers were to be kept on their feet. The present condition of New Zealand shipping was a very sick one, and a surgical operation was necessary to remove the cancerous growths which had developed partially unchecked during the war. The unions in the United Kingdom had voluntarily agreed to reductions, which were somewhat greater than those asked by the employers here. Air Young had argued that the overtime earned should not be taken into consideration in fixing wages of the men, but this did not apply in the case of seamen, whom, by working overtime, were not deprived of any home life through being unable to leave the ship. On the court’s decision in regard to wages would depend whether industries generally were to lie started on the road to prosperity or whether the present slump was to be continued. He submitted that t.he question of Australia was quite irrelevant, as tile conditions in the Commonwealth were different from those in New Zealand. His Honor said the court would probably be unable to consider the making of the award until the waterside workers’ case bad been concluded, but he hoped to have the award framed before the end of the month. He congratulated the parties upon the able manner iri which they had conducted the case.