CO129-500-3 Canton situation- governor's despatches 29-7-1927 - 1-9-1927 — Page 52

Enclosure No."

52

SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST. TUESDAY,

CHINA NAV. CO. STRIKE.

THE 1916 SETTLEMENT AND ARBITRATION.

STATEMENT BY COMPANY.

The following statement has (says last Wednesday's N. C. Daily News) been obtained from the China Navigation Co. regarding the present dispute with officers' and engineers' guilds:

the

As far back as July, 1925, the secretaries of the Guilds have been aware that if dislocation and suspension of the company's ser- vices on account of the disturbed political conditions in China con- tinued, a reduction in pay might have to be made.

The question was again discuss- ed in January, 1926, and in September, 1926, the company specially invited the Shanghai and Hongkong secretaries to a meeting when the position was explained and discussed with them, and they were advised that the time had come when a reduction must be made. The

have company throughout been reluctant to re- duce the scale of pay even tem- porarily; they have postponed it as long as they possibly could, and it was not put into effect until April 1 this year.

The Adjustment Board. On April 29 the secretaries wrote to the company calling for

an

dealt with certain provisions with regard to pension scheme, scale of pay, home leave and recognition of the Guilds, and the company's attitude with regard to such pro- visions remains unchanged but they

made it quite clear in a letter to the Guilds dated Decem- ber 11, 1917, when all the out- standing questions in the 1916 settlement had been settled, that tion must be by mutual consent. any future reference to arbitra-

Letter to the Guilds. This letter read as follows:

"All the outstanding questions in the settlement on May 12, 1916, between the companies and the captains' and officers' representa- tives having now been settled, our principals have instructed us to advise you that so far as they are concerned any future proposals to refer to arbitration must be 'by mutual consent.'

"At the same time they desire it to be made perfectly clear that this is by no means to be taken as an indication that the China Navigation Company is opposed to arbitration; it means only that the company cannot hold itself bound to submit any and all ques- tions which may possibly arise to arbitration and be bound by the result."

Compulsory arbitration in any and all points would create an impossible position in any busi-

ness.

The company have always maintained that they cannot agree to submit any and all questions which may arise in connexion with their business to arbitration. They have taken pains to ascer-

tain

and confirm that their attitude is a correct one and they are prepared to support their position by all reasonable and legitimate means.

adjustment board under the agreement of May, 1916, and on May 24 stated that members of the Guilds would cease work on June 30 unless the dispute was submitted to such adjustment board or the level of pay restored. The company informed them that the effects on the company's position of the critical political situation in China, and the con- sequent necessity for the reduc- tion, are not matters they could submit to arbitration and that they must retain freedom to meet the situation which, it must be evident to everyone, is subject to extraordinary changes following upon long periods of stoppage and dislocation of services, but that they had decided pending re- sumption of normal trading by the company's services to review the position of each quarter and if, in their opinion, the re- sults justify it, to pay the 10 per cent. for such quarter. The Guilds, however, ignored this pro- posal and demanded that adjust ment and arbitration boards

With reference should be called under the agree- ment of May, 1916. They also ment of the China Navigation Co., have stated that the company in-appearing in your issue of to-day tend to jettison the whole of that agreement. This is absolutely in- correct. The 1916 agreement

While the company deplore the action of the Guilds in forcing the issue by deliberately choosing to call a strike, they feel they cannot depart from their position because

extreme

such employed.

measures

The Guild's Reply.

are

A letter to the N. C. D. News from the Secretaries of the Guilds, replies to the Company's state-

ment as follows:

to the state-

we would thank you to publish the following reply of these Guilds:

Shorn of irrelative matter the

JULY

5, 1927.

arguments of the company are:

(a) The necessity of the salary reduction consequent on the critical political situation in China:

(b) Arbitration

must

be

by

mutual consent:

(c) Compulsory arbitration on any and all points would create an impossible posi- tion in any business: (d) They have taken pains to ascertain and confirm that their attitude is a correct

one.

In reply to the above: (a) Simply means that the com- pany has suffered losses, which these guilds have never denied:

arrange-

(b) Is absolutely' impracticable

as a conciliation ment for the adjustment of disputes between employer. and employee to the mutual satisfaction of both. Vis- ualizing the attitude of any two parties in dispute, one of which suggests "mutual arbitration" and the other refuses it, only emphasizes the absurd position of both those parties to arrive at a settle- ment. (Witness, in this connexion, as a recent instance, the refusal of the miners in England last year' to agree to arbitration and the consequent appoint- ment of mission). (c) An assertion entirely con- trary to any history on in- dustrial disputes and one so extraordinary that it is impossible to conceive that serious thought was given to it before it was indited: (d) These guilds have also, "taken pains to ascertain and confirm that their attitude is a correct

one.

•

a Royal Com-

""

Again, on the question of the agreement of 1916 by what virtue, does the China Navigation Co., as one of the parties thereto, arrogate to itself the right to declare that "future arbitration shall be by mutual consent?" The spirit and intention in which the company now regard the agreement is in distinct contrast to that in which

they entered into and signed it on May 12 and 15, 1926, and if any- thing emphatically disproves the "mutual arbitration" argument the company now advances, it is the following paragraph of the late Sir Everard Fraser's letter toi