CARGO PILLAGING.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16883, 10 July 1920, Page 11

CARGO PILLAGING.

CONFERENCE AT AUCKLAND.

Prevention of cargo pillaging was the subject of a conference, held at Auckland this week, between representatives of the Auckland Importers' Association, the Chamber of Commerce, tho Stevedores' Association, the Tally Clerks Union, and the Waterside Workers

Union. . Mr T. Saunders, president of tno Watcrsido Workers' Union, said, that a large proportion of the pillaging detected was done on the other side ot the world, and t>hat the men here knew nothing about it. They had definite proof of that, and members ot the importers' Association could verity it by "ohi" to the wharf and investigating the matter for themselves. Oniy recently, when the hatch was taken oit it veWl, the watersiders refused to go into the hold to discharge tho cargo, until after an officer of the ship had been down. He was not silly enough to suggest that tho 1350 members oL his Union were fit for the pulpit, but he claimed that they stood for common, honestv. He said the waterfront had become a dumping ground, it was the place that men'who came out ot gaol made tor- While pilfering did go on hero it was only in a very small way, and it was unfair to brand a large body of men employed on the wharf as criminals in consequence. Mr H. J. Shepperd (secretary of the Tallymen's Union) said that at a meeting 'of that body the men had agreed to offer their services to prevent pillaging. He suggc-sted that in cases where cargo was King in the sheds at night, when ships'were being worked, members of his Union should be employed to watch it. It was a difficult matter for men engaged in tallying cargo during tho dav to watch it. At the same time, he* suggested that men should be cruploycdTdoing nothing else but watching cargo. Mr Saunders said -he had known men to be employed to watch whisky stowed in sheds, aiid at tho same time there) would ":>e £1000 worth of furs which no one watched. In answer to a question as to what he siigcsted would prevent pillaging, Mr .Saunders replied: ' 'Common lioncsty by everybody. 1 ' He stated that if a man were convicted of pillagin» his union -'blocked'' him. Mr Sheoperd said that it would jeopardise*the union's preference clause to expel a. member convicted of pilfering. 'Iho chairman (Mr R. Burns): >o preference clause could possibly be jeopardised bv a union refusing in admit a man ot* bad c-hara'.-ter to membership. 1 do IT-.T think the Court vould rule against you on a preference clau.-e on that account. • . Mr Shepperd: No man found pillaging ;s expeiied from the Union. Oojectiims v. ore raised by our members against tho admission of' certain men. 1 went to lie Clerk ot Awards, and he .-aid: ''ityen exclude those men your are jeopardising roar preference clause. ,: Mr T. H. Mntkay said that if the men on the wharves.were not being paid enough then there was some reason for this pilfering. He wanted to know

whether thero was a possibility of arransrinjr a scheme whereby more regular! emjlofment would be provided lor the "Si- Saunders replied that if the warehonses in Auckland would pay a better wa«o thero would not be so many men relinquishing jobs and going on to the waterfront, where they thought they were going to make .a fortune. Mr Mackav said that it was a matter for the community as a whole to understand whether men were earning IV or £10 a week, or only £2 or £3 a week. Mr launders said that any men getting £4 10s or £5 a week regularly were better off than the men on tno Avll 3.1"Y GS. Mr Shepperd said thero were tallymen who earned between £o and £6 a week, but there were ot'hcrs who did not earn more than 30s. it was the pamo with tho watcrsiders. Expenenco had shown that they could never, get a sufficient number employed to justify weekly wages. There were always between 500 and 600 casuals in addition to permanent hands.