WATERSIDE WORKERS

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 72, 24 March 1923, Page 14

WATERSIDE WORKERS

THE NEW AWARD. JNTERPBKTATION ASKKU FDR. (My TelegrapA.—Press Aswlution.) WELLINGTON', Friday. The Arbitration Court was asked toiliiv to "ive interpretations of a. number oi provisions in the waterside workers' award, whii-li have recently been the cause of dispute. Mr. \V. H. (i. Bennett stated that the National Disputes Committee had ap- i pointed himself for the employers and | Hr. -lames Roberts for the employees, as joint secretaries of committee, and I bey therefore appeared jointly in seekin;; these interpretations. Mr. Roberts said clause .'■() of th'-j workers' award provided that every. party may appeal from the Local Disputes Committee to the National Disputes Committee. In the present in-1 stance the National Disputes Committee arrived at a unanimous decision on aj point referred to it by the Local Dis-; pntes Committee, namely as to the Wei-1 linjrton Harbour Board paying certain J rates. The Board claimed it had the I ripht to refer the dispute to the Arbitra-1 tion Court for interpretation. Captain Hale Munro (for the Board); contended that the Board was in a slightly different position to other!

! parties who had signed the agreement. as it had a local disputes committee of I its own. Mr. Justice Frazer ruled that the board was within its fight in appealing. He pointed out, however, that the National Disputes Committee, being a body with expert knowledge and sitting judicially, was in a much better position to decide most matters that camp before it than was the Court. Captain Munro stated the points in dispute. He contended that the provisions of clause '.i (special work) and clause 4 (dirty work), exempted the board from payment of extra rates provided by those clauses for men working special cargoes in ships' hold*. Ihe board had. therefore, not paid any i special rates for handling special or dirty cargoes since the coming into force of the new award on November 30th last. Mr. Roberts claimed that the men were entitled to extra pay. The Court reserved its decision. The Court was also asked for the internrrtation as to the rate to be paid to waterside workers for work done dining meal hours. Claude 17 provides for payment of double ordinary rates. The rate for ordinary general cargo was 2/2 and coal 2/4. The question was whether the. rate should be double 2/2 or in the case of coal double 2/4. The employers agreed that, in addition to 2/2. there was to be added the amount specified for the class of work tho men were working at. Decision was reserved.