WHARF WORK.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 218, 13 September 1940, Page 8

WHARF WORK.

CONTRACT SYSTEM. REPLY TO MR. R. E. PRICE. WELLINGTON, Thursday. On , behalf of the Wellington branch of the Watersiders' Federation, Mr. T. X. Warren made a statement to-day in reply to that made by th| chairman of the Waterfront Control Commission, Mr. R. E. Brice, in Auckland last, night. '"The Wellington branch was in receipt of and gajre full discussion to the contents of a copy of the contract arrived at by the Commission with the employers," said Mr. Warren, "and decided that as a party to the contract it should have been consulted before its acceptance. The negotiating of a separate contract with the Wellington Harbour Board comes under the same stricture. The principals in the contract are the only ones who 6hould negotiate its terms. Acceptance of the agreement by the Commissioner with the board ini*pliee the justice of the claims of the 400 men involved with retrospective payment for work already performed. "The union claims that: if a contract must be entered into, they, as a partv to the contract, are the only ones as a legally-constituted corporate body who have the right to its acceptance or otherwise, and do not agree with arbitrary acceptance of the conditions and payment arrived at by the Commission. As pioneers of the co-operative labour movement in Xew Zealand, the union feels the Minister of Labour, the Hon. P. C. Webb, and ilr. J. O'Brien, M.P., would fully understand and appreciate their protest." Mr. Warren is the Harbour Board employees' representative on the board of control.

COMMISSIONER'S VIEWS. WELLIXGTOX, Tliursdav. A further statement on the motion moved bv Mr. T. X. Warren and carried at a stop-work mee.ting of members of the Wellington branch of the Waterside Workers' Federation yesterday was made by the chairman of the Waterfront Control Commission, Mr. R. E. Price, to-night. "The full text of the resolution moved by Mr. Warren was placed before nie today," Mr. Price said, "and I note it expresses complaint because the contract system is operating, while at the same time complaining because it does not apply to all waterside workers. Surely this is inconsistency of. the highest order? The resolution goes on to "complain that nothing is known of the terms of the contract, and the mover emphasises this in speaking to the motion. Yet he concludes by foretelling the ultimate effect of the contract he claims to know nothing about. In his answer to mv reply, Mr. Warren admits the terms of the contract were fully discussed at the stop-work meeting at"which the resolution was passed."—(Press Assn.)