WATERFRONT CONTROL

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 25051, 6 December 1946, Page 6

WATERFRONT CONTROL

Commission May Not Continue STATEMENT BY MR FRASER (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 5. Referring to the waterfront situation the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. P. Fraser) said to-day that the impasse which had been reached raised the question whether the Waterfront Industry Commission would be able to continue to function. Obviously it could only operate effectively while its authority was observed by both employers and workers. “The present situation makes it necessary to consider whether the commission form of control is to continue, and this will have to be decided by the Cabinet,” Mr Fraser said. “An alternative would be for the waterside employers and workers to revert to the relationship existing before the setting up of the commission in 1940. The Waterfront Control Commission was set up in April, 1940, when it was vital to the war effort to expedite the turn-round of ships. The commission carried out most successfully the difficult job of organising the loading and discharging of vessels during the war, and the time taken to turn round overseas vessels was very much reduced. At the same time, under the understanding administration of the commission, and with the co-operation of the waterside workers, stoppages of work were reduced to a minimum. “After the end of hostilities the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union approached the Government requesting reconstruction of the commission on a peace-time basis, with two nominees each of the employers and Workers, and an independent chairman. A similar request had been made by the employers. The Government gave effect to the request of the union and the shipping companies, and on July 1, 1946, appointed the Waterfront Industry Commission, with Mr Justice Ongley as chairman, and two nominees each from the workers’ and employers organisations. Improved Conditions

“Both the Waterfront Control Commission and the Waterfront Industry Commissipn have done much in improving the conditions of employment of watersiders, and in maintaining harmony on the waterfront. The Waterfront Control Commission was responsible for the introduction of a system of payment by results, known as co-operative contracting, whereby the men received the actual amount earned on a tonnage or unit basis, and the quicker the vessel was loaded or discharged; the greater the return to the men at an hourly rate. “This system has been of great benefit to waterside workers and the industry, and I understand that the profit distributed under that contracting system now amounts to approximately £200,000 per annum.” said Mr Fraser. “The Waterfront Control Commission was also responsible for increasing the rate of pay by 2d an hour in June, 1940, and for improving minimum period payments from a two-hour minimum to a four-hour minimum. Other wage increases wet? made in line with the Court of Arbitration. Hours of work at the main ports were reduced from 10 p.m. to 9 p.m., and Saturday afternoon work was cancelled except Where a vessel could finish by 5 p.m. “The Waterfront Industry Commission has recently instituted further improvements for waterside workers in payment for statutory holidays, meal money where overtime is performed, and time arid a half for Saturday morning in lieu of time and a quarter previously paid. These improvements alone are estimated to cost approximately £lBO,OOO per annum. Uncertainty Reduced

“The effect of the various improvements in conditions, and the organising of the work by the commission, has had the result of materially eliminating the uncertain arid temporary nature of waterside work. I think it would be correct td say that under commission control waterside workers have enjoyed substantial improvements in their conditions, unparalleled in any other period ih the history or the waterfront. “Unfortunately, However, this form of control is jeopardised to-day. It is provided in the regulations that where members of the commission are unable to reach a decision, the decision of the chairman shall be the decision of the commission. In this case agreement could not be arrived dt, and in accordance with the regulations Mr Justice Ongley made the decision. 1716 effect of the decision is to provide for an attendance payment for men attending calls of labour and not en? bloyed from the commencement of the call In addition, men in this key industry are guaranteed a minimum wage of £25 in each four weeMy period for A grade workers, and £2l in each four weeks for B grade workers In other words, A grade workers are’ guaranteed a minimum income of £325 a year, and B grade Workers a minimum of £273 a year. “The distribution of profits under the contracting system will continue, and means a further payment of some £2OO 000 per annum at the present stage,’ or an average of £4O a man per annum for those participating. “I am advised that these terms have been rejected by the national executive of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union. The effect of this action completely nullifies the work of the Waterfront Industry Commission. It is evident that if decisions of the commission, properly arrived at, are not to be accepted, then the commission is of no effect, and its continuance is impossible to justify.