NORMAL WORK AT WELLINGTON

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24187, 21 February 1944, Page 4

NORMAL WORK AT WELLINGTON

Waterfront Dispute Inquiry • UNION STATEMENT ON CAUSES (P.A.) WELLINGTON, February 20. All work proceeded normally on the Wellington waterfront on Saturday morning. Arrangements have been made for an immediate investigation into the dispute which caused the stoppage of work last week. The local disputes committee of the union will meet on Monday, and failing a decision being reached, the issue will be submitted to the national disputes committee. If it too fails in its investigation the matter will be submitted to the Waterfront Control Commission. A reply to statements published on Thursday about the cause of the dispute was prepared by the Wellington Waterside Workers’ Union, but they delayed its publication because of the long meeting of the union on Friday. In the reply, which was signed by Messrs A. E. Napier (secretary of the Wellington Union), A. C. Dellaway (president), W. J. Carr (vice-presi-dent), A. Leary (walking and R. Butler (bureau officer), they ask permission to reply through the columns of the newspapers to “the somewhat erroneous account given by Captain R. E. Price.” “This particular dispute actually arose on Friday night, February 11, when a number of men stacking cargo from an overseas vessel asked for an extra man, as the cargo, consisting of bags of cornflour and case cargo, was being ‘scootere'cl’ into the sheds on trailers and required to be sorted before being stacked.” The statement proceeds: “As extra stackers were not supplicd, the dispute extended into Saturday morning, and after the union officials had been called in a compromise was effected by the Harbour Board authorities doing away with the scooter and trailers at one of the ship’s hatches and putting on two hand trucks, and two men to each truck. This, of course, would lighten the work of the stackers for this particular hatch, as the cargo did not come into the shed as quickly as on the scooter and trailers, but in actual reality it is just the way cargo was transported from ship to shed and vice versa before trailers were used as extensively as they are to-day. “For the guidance of the general public, and incidentally of the commission, may we point out that the Harbour Board rules governing this class of work provide that there shall be four men at least when hand trucks are used by a gang, and that when bagged cargo is being trucked there shall be four men stacking, with the aid of an overhead crane. These rules also provide that when hand trucks are first used alongside the ship’s haten and later on (as sometimes happens) a scooter and trailers are used, the first two men will assist in landing the cargo on the trailers, and the last two men will go into the shed to assist in stacking or other necessary work. These last two men are not to replace any stacker previously in the shed, and must not be discharged until their mates outside are finished. It is quite obvious from this provision, that it had been foreseen and allowances made in the past to offset the extra work made for the stackers by the employment of scooters and trailers over the human-propelled hand truck. Nevertheless, it has becoffie a practice quite recently for the Harbour Board to use mechanical means of transporting cargo to the sheds right from the commencement of the ship discharging, and only employing the minimum number of stackers, without regard to the more speedy scooters and trailers, and the more arduous and exacting work entailed in the sheds. “This was the original cause of the dispute, and although a compromise was effected at first on the Saturday morning by substituting hand trucks for trailers at one hatch, the suggestion was made by the Harbour Board that the changeover might be only temporary and the trailers used later. "However, work proceeded normally until Monday morning, when the men who had been added to the original stackers objected to being taken away from their job of stacking, to load carts They contended —and the union upheld them—that their job of stacking was not finished, and that for the commission to publicly state that these men flatly refused a transfer when they had no further work to do is a downright contradiction of the fact. “In conclusion, we would like to state that when the whole of the men —ship and Harbour Board —stopped work when the three men were not I'cinstated, the commission made no effort to moot the union regarding the settlement ot the dispute.”