CAUSES OF HOLD-UP

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 116, 12 November 1938, Page 10

CAUSES OF HOLD-UP

CASE FOR EMPLOYERS

REPLY TO UNION PRESIDENT

(By Telegraph—Press Association.)

AUCKLAND, November 11

Issued after a meeting of the Port of Auckland Shipping and Stevedores' Association today, a statement in reply to one from Mr. 8.. G. Jones, president of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union,, claimed that halftruths were contained in the case put forward for the union. Mr. Jones's statement, which was telegraphed yesterday, outlined the reasons for the dispute in the Union Company's ships Waiana and Kaimiro, the chief cause of the waterfront deadlock. "The employers feel that they can- i not allow the public to be put off! •with half-truths from Mr. Jones," stated the association. , It said that on Wednesday, November 2, because of the monthly stop-work meeting of the Waterside Workers' Union, which is held till 10 a.m., six gangs were ordered for the Waiana for that hour. Because of the large number of motorcars having to be discharged first, there was no room for the other three gangs until 1 p.m. Had these three gangs been put on at 10 a.m., there would have been nothing for them to do except,to idle round the job. "FAIR AND EFFICIENT." "The procedure adopted at the Waiana was perfectly fair and efficient and according to the terms of their award," the statement continued. "Apart from this, it is a practice followed by all other companies when occasion. demands. The men,therefore, took direct action to force payment from the employers to which they were not entitled by knocking off work at 1 p.m. on the Wednesday before any local disputes committee meeting had been asked for, Later that afternoon one member of the union executive, who realised that the men's action was unconstitutional, asked that they should be allowed to begin work again at 8 a.m. on Thursday, November 3. In spite of the presence of an agreed penalty for this stoppage under the bureau scheme used for engaging labour and equalising hours of work, the employers agreed to waive it in this case and let the same men start again. After work was resumed the union asked for a local disputes committee meeting, which was immediately held, but . no agreement was reached. "There are two further bodies to which this dispute could then have been referred in turn. If no agreement could be reached by the national disputes committee the dispute could have been referred to the Court of Arbitration. "Mr. Jones now states that, as the employers failed to negotiate, which is shown by the above facts to be definitely incorrect, the men decided to knock off. This reads *as if it is Mr. Jones's idea that unless a dispute is settled in the men's favour each time they cannot do anything other than cease work. This is exactly the principle all employers must combat. BAIN PREVENTED WORK. "Continuing, Mr. Jones says that in the case of the Kaimiro on- November 3 the employer, for no apparent reason, decided to hold the men's labour till 9 a.m. There was a very good reason and that was rain. Though another ship made an attempt to start work by engaging its labour from 8 a.m., this work had to cease; in fact, it could not even be started, because of rain. I "The statement made by Mr. Jones that the men had accepted a contract for the Kaimiro to start at 8 a.m. is incorrect. The contract was made from 9 a.m., the time stated on the bureau engagement board, and the men, by lifting their discs for that hour, confirmed the contract. "Mr. Jones admits in his statement that the men decided to take action for the purpose of settling their grievance. This action should have been on constitutional lines through the local disputes committee, then the National disputes committee, and, if necessary, the Court of Arbitration. "The final statement about the penalty attached to being absent for oniy five minutes from the bureau is another half-truth," concluded the association's statement. "The position would take too long to explain fully, but it is sufficient to say that there are penalties enforced under the rules of the waterside labour bureau for certain offences to maintain the efficient running of the scheme, all penalties being agreed to by members of the union."