WHEAT LOADING

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23589, 17 March 1942, Page 4

WHEAT LOADING

WORK AT LYTTELTON An allegation that remarks in an article in "The Press” on Saturday about a hold-up in the loading of wheat at Lyttelton were contrary to fact was made in a statement by the Waterfront Controller (Captain 11. A, Brockett) yesterday. He said that no stop work meeting was held, and that any time lost during the loading was when the weights of some of the sacks were being checked. ‘The regulations set the maximum gross weight of sacks at 2031b, and if this was adhered to by the growers concerned, any dispute arising from the handling of wheat on the waterfront would be obviated.” continued-Captain Brockett. “Waterside workers have agreed to carry bags up to 20Slb gross weight, but in this case a check-up showed that several sacks contained various weights up to 2241b. The only time lost at the vessel concerned averaged 25 minutes a gang for the full working day. This was the time taken in checking the weights of sacks. The statement that it was decided by the unionists that the balance of the wheat would not be loaded is incorrect, as figures will prove on the completion of loading. “When carrying wheat in a ship’s hold the waterside worker is handL capped by *the uneven surface upon which he walks. In this case it was sacked wheat and a weight of 2031b is the maximum any man eould be expected to carry. It is grossly unfair of farmers or those responsible for not maintaining the -weight agreed upon. It would be interesting to know whether a farmer or his employee would weigh sacked wheat direct from the header if he hud quoted a set price for sacks of 2031b to the buyer. “Having been closely connected with waterside labour for many years, it is my opinion that a great deal of trouble arises on the waterfront in consequence of frequent and incorrect articles about disputes,” concluded Captain Brockett.