WATERFRONT WORK

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 200, 24 August 1945, Page 6

WATERFRONT WORK

COMMISSION'S ORDERS

COURT UPHOLDS VALIDITY P.A. WELLINGTON, this day. Decision was given to-day by the Court of Appeal in the case relating to the powers exercised by the Waterfront Control Commission, heard on July 4 last.

The case, which was removed under Section 64 of the Judicature Act for argument, sought a declaratory judgment which would determine the validity of certain orders of the Waterfront Commission dated July 28, 1944, and April 9, 1945, prescribing the terms and conditions of employment of waterfront labour in New Zealand.

The plaintiffs were the New Zealand Waterside Employers' Association and the Wellington Harbour Board, and the defendants the Waterside Control Commission and the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union. It was claimed t>y the plaintiffs that the commission's action was: (1) In excess of powers which had been given to it by the executive Government; (2) contrary to the principles of natural justice; (3) outside the prescription which it had itself expressly laid down; and (4) contrary to the principles of economic stabilisation. Appeal Court's Rulings The Court held that the commission, in making the orders concerned, was not acting in excess of its powers, nor was it exercising a judicial function beyond its legislative powers, as had been contended.

Referring to the contention that Order No. 116, relating to shift work, was in conflict with a main order, the Court held that where there was such a conflict minimum payments were to be made in accordance with Order 116. The main order remained in force, but was subject to Order 116. On the question of shift work, the Court held that, except on the first day of a ship's working, workers ordered down or back were to be paid the rates set out in Order 116. Shift work might not be discontinued except with the consent of the Waterfront Controller or other representative of the commission. It did not rest with the workers, or employers, to decide to cease work because of wet or Avindy weather.

The Court held that Order 124 was valid in law and the commission had power to make it. The Court also held that the commission was not precluded by the stabilisation regulations from paying waterfront workers at a rate of remuneration above that provided by the regulations. *

Order 116, which was expressed to apply to vessels beginning work on August 1, 1944, related to shift work. It was stated that overseas vessels should be worked continuously on the shift system unless it could be shown to the satisfaction of the commission that it was not practicable to do so. Intercolonial vessels which had sufficient cargo to provide work for three or more continuous night shifts, where practicable to do so, were to work on the shift system under the same conditions as overseas vessels. While the coal shortage existed vessels of any tonnage carrying coal for discharge at any port should, where practicable, work under the. shift system, and, where impracticable, all coal-carrying vessels should work extended hours over the week-end. Other conditions were also laid down.

Known as Order 124, an order issued on April 9 provided that the Waterfront Controller or the assistant Waterfront Controller should act as chairman of local disputes committees in Wellington, and in the event of any agreement not being reached the dispute was to. be referred to the National Disputes Committee unless, in the opinion of the chairman, the dispute was of local significance only. In the latter event, it was directed that the Waterfront Controller should exercise his authority to make a decision.