LABOUR ON THE WATERFRONT

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22317, 3 February 1938, Page 12

LABOUR ON THE WATERFRONT

* [WORKERS’ REPLY TO CRITICISM EMPLOYERS BLAMED FOR DELAYS 4LLEGED FAILURE TO OBTAIN LABOUR (PRESS ASSOCIATIOS TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, February 2. Mr J. O. Johnson, secretary of the Wellington branch of the Waterside Workers’ Union, in a letter to the “Evening Post’’ says; “The union has decided that an official reply should be given to the statements regarding the dispute on the Port Campbell and the charge that waterside workers were responsible for damage to the fruit discharged from the Rangatira on January 26.” Mr Johnson says that the trouble in both cases was due to the action of the employers. Referring to the Port Campbell case, Mr Johnson says that when the order was given to work during the tea hour at No. 1 hatch some of the men told the employer early in the day that they would be unable to do so, for reasons which they gave, thus giving the employer an opportunity to procure substitutes, in accordance with custom. No attempt was made to obtain substitutes. All the men in- the gang had accepted the orders to resume work at 6* p.m. and continue until midnight, if required, to finish loading the vessel, continued Mr Johnson. This applied to every man employed on the ship. When some of the men at No. 1 hatch declined to work through the meal hour, the foreman dismissed the whole gang. Mr Johnson contends that the employers could have tried to get substitutes for the men who were not prepared to work during the tea hour or else send the men to tea and bring them back at 6 o’clock, in which case there would have been no interruption. Fruit on Rangatira Referring to the Rangatira’s fruit, Mr Johnson says that if there was danger of the fruit deteriorating in the ship’s hold if it were not put out on January 24 (a soaking wet day), why did not the employers ask the union officials for assistance in getting it discharged? Officers of the union-were not told anything about the fruit until January 27, ■when the Port Campbell case was under discussion. It was then stated that the fruit had been' put out by the company’s permanent hands on the previous day, which was the waterside picnic day, and the fruit was simply running out of the cases. “We state unhesitatingly,” says Mr Johnson, “that had the officers of the union been approached and told that the fruit was in danger of going bad, it would have been put out, the rain notwithstanding. There has not been a case in the last 20 years at least, where our men refused to assist when ships or cargo were in danger. They have risked their lives and gone below when ships have i een on fire and have never hesitated to respond to calls when vessels have gone on the rocks or been in danger of sinking.”