WORK DECLINED.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20332, 15 June 1934, Page 7

WORK DECLINED.

Complications in Stewards’ Dispute. MAKURA LAID UP. There is no change in the situation in Wellington as regards the dispute between the cooks and stewards and the shipping owners. It was stated this morning that the owners had definitely refused to meet the men to discuss the question of the restoration of the 10 per cent cut. The men had proposed that a conference should be held early in July, and they said that if this was agreed to they were prepared to work all vessels in the meantime. As a result of the owners’ answer no men were offering when a call was made to man the Makura at Wellington yesterday, and the June trip of thct vessel to San Francisco was cancelled. The men state that they were quite prepared to man both the Makura and the Maori if the owners had agreed co the meeting in July. A further meeting of the men will be held in Wellington to-morrow when it is likely that further proposals will be put to the owners. In the meantime the position is likely to be complicated by the arrival in Wellington to-day of the Monowai from Australia via Auckland. UNION STATEMENT. Responsibility for Hold-up Denied. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, June 15. The cooks and stewards of the Monowai, which is due to sail for Sydney to-day, have given notice to the Union Company. Referring to« the statement in the newspapers yesterday that owing to the refusal of the members of the Cooks and Stewards’ Union to answer calls for employment, the sailing of the Makura had been delayed—it has since been cancelled —Mr Kennedy, secretary of the union, said that the matter in dispute between the Union Company and the union went back to the time when the 10 per cent was taken off their wages in 1931. From time to time the union had asked for the restoration of that cut. They had had meetings before the Conciliation Council and no agreement could be reached, therefore the award was cancelled under the amended Arbitration Act, and there remained no award or any agreement, the union being left with only the contracts they signed from time to time in cyticles.

On February 26, 1934, the union made application that the 10 per cent cut be restored to the members of the union employed by the Union Company. The union suggested that the matter be discussed at a round-table conference. The manager was sick, and on the company’s suggestion the matter was put off. Later it was again taken up with the company by the union, and the union was told that a conference could not take place, one reason being that other maritime unions had an interest in the matter as well as the cooks and stewards. The secretary of the union suggested to the company that it would be ad\*antageous to have a conference of all the unions concerned with the company.

The union had discussed the matter with the other maritime unions, and on Monday last representatives of the Seamen’s and Cooks’ and Stewards’ Unions waited on Mr Smith, manager of the company, and discussed the matter with him. The union’s proposal was that the employers be informed that the Searpen’s Union and the Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union desired to meet them in conference early in July for the purpose of discussing the question of restoration of wage cuts, work to proceed normally pending some decision.

The reply to that was that the company would meet them to discuss their agreement. That was not the matter it was intended to discuss at all. The matter to be discussed was one of wages.

The newspaper statement said that it was the attitude of the union that stopped the Makura from leaving. That was not so. The responsibility was put on the owners themselves by their refusal to meet the unions in conference to discuss the question of wage restoration. Had that conference been arranged the Makura would have been worked in the ordinary course. It seemed that the employers blamed the union for something it was not responsible for and by' refusing to meet the union in conference the responsibility rested on the owners and not on the union. Owners’ Attitude. The secretary of the New Zealand Shipowners’ Federation (Mr T. O. Bishop), commenting on Mr Kennedy’s statement, says that it is substantially correct, but not entirely so. For instance, while it is true that the awards were cancelled, a letter was sent to Mr Kennedy on December 14 1933, advising him that members of the federation were prepared to endorse articles, with a statement that the wages and conditions of the expired award would continue to be observed, on the understanding that this arrangement was temporary until such time as the question of a new agreement between the federation and the union had been finalised. This was done at Mr Kennedy’s own request and had the effect of continuing the old agreement in operation pending the making of a new one.

” As to the immediate cause of the present dispute, the Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union and the Seamen’s Union asked for a conference in July for the purpose of discussing the restoration of wage reductions. The federation replied that the employers were prepared to meet the unions jointly or separately, as they might prefer, for the purpose of discussing their agreements. The Seamen’s Union award does not expire ti 1 l August 31 but the undertaking to meet in July, a month before the expiry, was in accordance with the usual procedure. The shipewners were not prepared to limit the discussion to the one question of wages, but were prepared to discuss complete new agreements in accordance with the invariable custom of many years.”