SLOW HANDLING OF CARGO

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23444, 26 September 1941, Page 8

SLOW HANDLING OF CARGO

CHARGES* MADE IN REPORT WELLINGTON STATISTICS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 25. A report of a special committee presented to the Wellington • Harbour Board last night showed that, from 1935 to 1940 the cost of handling English and foreign cargo increased annually till there was a difference Oj. Is ltd a ton. Of this, wages represente- 7-id. It stated that ships’ working .gear and wharf facilities had improved itf the period, so an explanation of the rise must be looked for elsewhere. Evidence showed that the rate of discharge fell from 16J tons an hour during the period under review to 12J tons, which must partly be an explanation. In the nine months of the 1941 financial year the cost had further advanced till, in. June it was nearly 3s 6jd, or almost double the 1935 cost. It was admitted that during this period exceptional conditions had existed, such as congestion at the sheds, shift work, and bonus payments. In spite of the heavy increase in costs, the rate of discharge continued to fall, till at the end of June it was just under 12i tons an hour. During this period further wages risfcs accounted for 4d a ton. “Overtime Slower” The wages of the permanent staff had advanced 28 per cent, since 1935, and the casual wharf labourers’ rate of discharging British and foreign ships 16 per cent., or from 2s 2d an hour to a little more than 3s 5d ah hour, including bonus payments averaging sid an hour. It could be quite reasonably expected that steady increases in rates of pay would be accompanied by some compensatory return in the way of faster work. However, it was clear from the discharging results that the last seven years had been marked by a fall in the speed of handling inward cargo. . .. Necessary work in overtime hours was performed .at a slower rate compared with ordinary time, and therefore the increased quantity -of cargo now discharged in overtime hours reduced the average rate of cargo handled. An investigation of the factual evidence i.nd submissions contained in a statement by the chief executive officer appeared to establish that the causes contributing to the increased costs in handling cargo were; (1) Increases in rates of pay, including special * .tes for Saturday morning: (2) bonus payments to casual wharf labourers; (3) an increase in the minimum payments for the engagement of casual wharf labourers; (4) slower rate of handling cargo; (5) a change in the class of cargo received from overseas; and (6) congestion of cargo m sheds. The board adopted the report. COMMENT BY THE COMMISSION *( NOT A COMPLETE PICTURE” (P A ) WELLINGTON, Sept. 25. The report of the committee on waterfront operations presented to last night’s meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board was commented on today by the Waterfront Control Commission as follows:—“ The Wellington Harbour Board, at a meeting held last night, submitted a long report to the press on the question of the increased wages granted to the waterside workers and increased handling costs. From the press reports it would appear that this qustion was referred to the committee appointed by that body about a month ago. AH’those connected with the waterside work did anticipate. and had a right to anticipate, that when the investigation was being made this committee would hear evidence from interested parties, such as the New Zealand Waterside Workers Union, the Harbour Board Employees Union, and the Waterfront Control Commission. From the statement which appeared ia Ihe-press and the supplied to the commission, it would appear that the board has accepted a report of its rhief executive officer. - “It is doubtful if the committee made any investigation as to cargo handling costs and how these costs were allocated. It is true that the wage rates of waterside workers have been increased since 1935; it is equally true that the earnings of waterside workers in that year and for some years previous were so much below the bare subsistence level, that the men with dependants were forced to apply to the State for assistance to maintain their families during that period. Therefore, to quote a percentage wage rate increase from the very low level of the depression period to the comparatively high war level period presents a picture" to the public which has little relation to the actual living standards of the waterside workers, as the earnings of these men are determined to a far greater extent by regularity of , employment and the amount of overtime work than by the actual wage rates. Congestion In Sheds "Working ‘round the clock’ and increased overtime generally have undoubtedly increased handling costs. The special rates payable for increased overtime work on Monday to Friday, and Saturday evening and Sunday work have increased handling costs. But the congestion of the sheds must have increased handling costs to the Wellington Harbour Board as much as any other factor. From reports submitted to us, and from our knowledge that extra labour had been employed shifting cargo and stacking cargo, delivery charges have not increased, while receiving charges show a substantial increase. The statement purports to show that there has been a serious falling off in the rate of work from 1935 to the present time. This is not a complete picture of the actual position. In 1935 a greater part of the cargo handled was what is known as measurement cargo.. In 1941 the greater part of the cargo is weight cargo; but even allowing for that, the statement submitted to the Harbour Board does not tally with the statement submited by the board to the Waterfront Control Commission. The question of handling costs to the Wellington Harbour Board can be determined accurately only by one method, namely, a practical test, and the Waterfront Control Commission is prepared to undertake it. We will discharge any number of vessels that the Wellington Harbour Board may determine, coastal or overseas, and larjd cargo into the shed at a rate much less than that which the Harbour Board states it costs at the present time. The commission will, of course, have no responsibility for delivery.”