CHANGING OF ARTICLES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3869, 8 May 1928, Page 15

CHANGING OF ARTICLES.

A QUESTION OF WAGES. - ARBITRATION COURT RULING. WELLINGTON, May 1. The Arbitration Court has issued its judgment upon the recent dispute concerning the rates of .pay due to cooks and stewards when the RM S. Makura changed articles at Wellington on August 3, 1927. “ The court decided this matter in what is known as the Manaia case (Book of Awards, vol. XXII, p. 1230),” states Mr Justice Frazer in delivering the opinion of a majority of the court. “ Seetion 76 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, provides that a seaman’s right to wages and rations shall be taken to begin either at the time he commences work or at the time specified in the agreement for his commencement of work or presence on board, whichever first happens Section 41 (4) (a) of the Act requires the agreement to contain a term stating the time at which the seaman is to be on board or to commence work. The agreement in the present case omitted that term doubtless because the articles were being renewed, and the engagement " was regarded as continuous. However, it is not disputed that the men commenced work at 8 a.m. on August 3, so that their right under section 76 to wages and rations commenced from that hour. The awards provide that a special rate of wages shall be paid to cooks and stewards when ..working by a ship before they sign the articles. In the present case the articles were not signed till 1 p.m., and the men were entitled to the special rate for the time worked between 8 a.m. and 12 noon. The award, does not say that the higher rate is to be paid in addition to the sea pay rates, and no court could hold that two separate payments were to be made for the same work unless the Act or the awards clearly provided that this was to be done. No such provision exists, and the opinion of the court is that the men who worked, from 8 a.m. to 12 noon were entitled to receive their wages for four-ninths of a day at the sea pay rate, plus an amount that would bring their wages for the four hours up to the shore rate. There has been neglect to give due regard to the fact that their engagement as members of the crew from 8 a.m. made them members of the crew from that time, though the written contract was not executed until 1 p.m. (see Lawson v. Levin and Company, 13’TJ.L.R. p. 495). There is no provision to enable any deduction to be made for the value of rations supplied, and in the opinion of the court the employer is not entitled to make any such reduction. The right to rations is definitely given by section 76 by virtue of the men being members of the crew. “ The court understands that the question of the calculation of overtime on the day’s work is behind the question submitted, and in order to remove any doubt on the matter it is desirable to add that those men who were engaged, as members of the crew and commenced work at or after 8 a.m. and before signing the articles were entitled to overtime rates of pay on completion of the daily number of hours fixed by the awards or on the expiration of th" daily span of hours. That is to say, the prov.. .ous ot the award as to overtime were applicable in the same manner as if the articles had been signed at 8 a.m. On the other hand, if a shore worker engaged as such and not as a member of the crew had been—paid separately for work done by the ship in port and had been signed on the articles later in the day in order to fill a vacancy he would not have been entitled to overtime payment until after he had completed a full day’s work from the time he commenced work after signing the articles.” Mr Monteith dissented: “ I believe it is a new engagement,” he said, “ because men can, if they desire, refuse to sign articles, and it simply means that the old award engagement under shore rates ceases at noon, and no new engagement commences. No provision exists to run the sea pay and shore pay into one another, and sea pay ceased at 5 p.m. on the 2nd and did not commence until the articles were signed at noon on the 3rd, and therefore could not be continuous.”