crew payments were not piece work, since 

 the trip proceeds were shared. 



The decision is binding on lower 

 courts in Nova Scotiaj and if a similar 

 case came before the courts in another prov- 

 ince, the Lunenberg decision would carry 

 weight with them. Deep-sea fishing is con- 

 sidered to be within provincial jurisdic- 

 tion and does not co:me under the scope of 

 federal review. 



As a result of this decision, the 

 Nova Scotia Legislature the same year 

 passed the Fishermen's Federation Act, now 

 R.S.N. 195U, chapter 103, which provided 

 for a form of collective bargaining for 

 deep-sea fishermen provided the bargaining 

 agent represented the majority of the fish- 

 ermen resident in the country. No use has 

 been made of the Act and no bargaining 

 agent has ever been approved. The reasons 

 advanced for this are: (1) the number of 

 trawler fishermen in the total number of 

 deep-sea fishermen is small; (2) the 

 fishermen on the subsidized long- liners are 

 often joint-adventurers in fact as well as 

 in spirit and do not consider themselves 

 wage earners, and; (3) many trawler men 

 are from other provinces, particularly New- 

 foundland. Although there may be no theo- 

 retical legal barriers to organization, 

 the Federation Act is likely to remain in- 

 operative unless and until some legal dis- 

 tinction is made of the classes of deep-sea 

 fishermen. 



For whatever reasons , there are two 

 differences in the work arrangements of 

 fishermen on Canadian trawlers as compared 

 to those on New England trawlers. One is 

 the nature of the lay; the other is the 

 layover time . 



The lay or share arrangements differ 

 radically, although perhaps not so much in 

 the net results to the owner. In New Eng- 

 land, the basis for sharing is as follows: 



Out of gross receipts, certain trip 

 expenses known as "joint" expenses are de- 

 ducted. The balance is divided with 60 

 percent going to the crew (the gross crew 

 share) and iiO percent to the owner (the 

 owner's gross share). From the crew's 

 share, the cost of the fuel, food, and ice 

 (for 3 summer months, ice cost is a joint 

 expense) used on the trip is deducted. 

 The owner from his share sets aside 10-11 



percent as a bonus to the ship's officers. 

 The remainder is the contribution to ves- 

 sel overhead. 



In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, after 

 deduction of any joint expenses the balance 

 is divided with 63 percent going to the 

 owner and 37 percent to the crew. Out of 

 the gross crew share is deducted the cost 

 of the food. Out of the corner's share is 

 deducted the cost of the fuel and ice con- 

 sumed, plus a bonus to the ship's officers 

 of about 12-13 percent of the owner's gross 

 share . 



One further vairiation between the two 

 lays is that in Boston the crew are guar- 

 anteed earnings of $12 a day per man. V/hen 

 crew shares computed according to the for- 

 mula are less than this minimum, the owner 

 must make up the deficit from his share. 

 On poor trips this has the effect of in- 

 creasing the real share of labor in the 

 catch proceeds. No such minimum payment 

 system exists in the Atlantic Provinces. 



It is difficult to assess the ulti- 

 mate cost advantages or disadvantages of 

 the two lay systems. Much depends on the 

 cost of the fuel and ice paid for by the 

 Canadian owner relative to his gross re- 

 ceipts. In Newfoundland, where the price 

 per pound for fish on the boats surveyed 

 averaged only 2 cents, the cost of fuel 

 and ice as a proportion of gross revenue 

 was high. Since these costs are deducted 

 from the owner's share, the remaining con- 

 tribution to overhead is lower than it 

 would be if the Newfoundland operator had 

 used the New England lay. (Compare the 

 fjxst two columns of table 11-16). Simi- 

 larly, in Nova Scotia, where the price of 

 fish averaged 1 cent more per pound than 

 in Newfoundland, fuel and ice costs as a 

 proportion of revenue were lower than in 

 Newfoundland. Consequently, the contri- 

 bution to overhead on the Nova Scotia 

 trawlers was somewhat better than it would 

 have been on a New England lay, (table 

 11-16^ . 



On balance, however, it would not 

 appear that the variations in the two lays 

 work to the disadvantage of the New Eng- 

 land owner. In fact, he would seem to 

 have an advantage over the Newfoundland 

 operator. The evidence is too limited to 

 make any judgment in respect to Nova 

 Scotia. It must be considered, however, 

 that the variable determining the net 

 difference in the two lays is the 



27 



