DEADLOCK REACHED

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 237, 6 October 1936, Page 9

DEADLOCK REACHED

DISPUTE HEARING. STEVEDORES AND FOREMEN. QUESTION OF APPLICATION. Since no settlement could be reached as to the application of the award sought, a deadlock was reached in the conciliation council hearing to-day of a dispute brought by the Auckland Assistant Stevedores, Foremen and Timekeepers' (Waterside Work) Union. The employers sought the exclusion of assistant stevedors from the claims, but since the union strongly objected to this, the question of application was referred to the Arbitration Court, and discussion of the terms of the award was postponed until after the Court gives its ruling. The dispute was heard before the conciliation commissioner, Mr. R. E. Price. The union's assessors were Messrs. H. J. Sheppard, J. Wilson, R. McKenzie and T. Irvine. For the employers, Messrs. W. E. Anderson, G. E. Fox, R. S. Lewis, C. H. Norman and G. S. Poole appeared. The union proposed that minimum wages should be as follow: Assistant stevedores, £40 per lunar month; senior foremen, £40; foremen (working cargo other than general, £37; loremen and timekeepers, £35. Registered Title. Objection was raised early by the employers to the inclusion of assistant stevedores in the claims because of the distinction in the nature of their "work. Though the union was registered to include these men, it was suggested that the title of the union might be altered by some mutual arrangement. Mr. Price: Since the union is registered to include them, assistant stevedores must come under the claims. The question was allowed to stand for the meantime, but it arose again when the definition of "senior foremen was considered. It was pointed out that while these men were classed separately by one company they were included with assistant stevedores by another. The employers asked also that these be struck out. Since the main claims hinged on the application of the award, the application clause was next considered and caused a good deal of discussion. The union's clause specified that the award ' should not apply to any officer whose salary is not less than £GOO per year," while the employers sought a lower limiting figure.

Offer Not Accepted. Following a retirement the employers made an unprejudiced offer, described as "one of the best ever heard in a conciliation council," in respect to the salaries of assistant ste\|:lores. After consideration the union assessors announced that it was not acceptable. Mr. Anderson: It seems that the only thing to do is to send the claims on to the Court to get a ruling on the interpretation and application clauses. When the Court has done that the other claims will be sent back to the council. We can't very well make an award unless we clearly understand and are agreed upon the class of workers it is meant to cover. ? Mr. Slieppard: My union holds that under no circumstances should assistant stevedores be struck out of these claims unless the Court absolutely rules them out. The employers stated that there was no objection to assistant stevedores forming a union of their own, but they did not wish them to be brought in with foremen and timekeepers. A further suggestion was made that tlio employers' offer should be placed before a meeting of the union and that a further conciliation council should then be called, but the union assessors decided to leave the question at issue to the Court.