TIMARU HARBOUR STAFF

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25303, 1 October 1947, Page 8

TIMARU HARBOUR STAFF

DISMISSAL OF TWO z MEN DISPUTES COMMITTEE FAILS TO AGREE From Our Own Reporter TIMARU, September 30. A dispute resulting from the dismissal of two employees of the Timaru harbourmaster’s staff and the subsequent engaging of others on the engineering staff was heard at Timaru to-day by an industrial committee set up under the Strike? and Lock-outs Emergency Regulations. As no agreement was reached by the committee, a decision will be made by the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr A. B. Rigg), who presided at the sitting. Mr Rigg will forward his findings to the Minister. The two employees concerned were Messrs E. J. Hannam and D. Macritchie. The Timaru Harbour Board was represented by the chairman (Mr R. S. Goodman), Messrs W. H. Hall and H. J. R. Somerville. The sitting was also attended by the harbourmaster (Captain F. J. Callan), who gave evidence. The New Zealand Harbour Boards’ Employees’ Union was represented by Mr B. Freeland, of Auckland (Dominion secretary), Mr D. H. Weith, a member of the Timaru branch of the Waterside Workers’ Union, and Mr D. McDonald, secretary of the Timaru branch of the Harbour Boards’ Employees’ Union. The harbourmaster, some time before the dismissal of the two men, had sought to make a local agreement with the pilot’s staff, said Mr Freeland, opening the case for the men. However, he (Mr Freeland) had advised against this. After the dismissal of the two mtn, Mr Freeland continued, the board had engaged two or three men on the engineering staff.. “We consider that if work had ceased on the harbourmaster’s staff the men should

have been employed in the Engineering department, rather than employ others,” said Mr Freeland. Mr Weith explained that he had entered into the dispute because the handling of ships concerned the waterfront, and because objection had been taken to employees of the engineer’s staff doing duty on the harbourmaster’s staff.

Why Men Were Not Required Mr Goodman said the services of the two men wete not required for the following reasons:—first, since the completion of the north mole on the new alignment, range and surge in the harbour had been practically eliminated, and all vessels lay quietly at the wharves. There was not so much wear and tear on ropes and fenders, and the same attention was not required. Second, the number of ships entering the port during 1947 averaged nine a month, compared with 31 a month during 1939. Third, because of improved conditions, and the security of vessels while in harbour, only two men were required for ordinary daily duties, and one storeman. The practice of drawing on the engineer’s staff when required had been carried out for 60 years, and after careful consideration the harbourmaster had expressed his satisfaction that the port could be efficiently worked with three men on the pilot’s staff instead of five. In other words* added Mr Goodman, all that the board was now doing was to ask three* men to handle nine ships a month, whereas in 1939 fivfe men had been handling 31 ships a month. Captain Callan, m evidence, said that all he had done was to meet the men at the suggestion of the union secretary, and to discuss the practicability of concluding a local agreement, which had always been found a useful method of meeting purely local har- ' bour problems. He asserted that a pilot staff of three could do all the work required in handling coastal shipping, and that the engineer’? staff was called upon only when overseas vessels had to be handled. The duties of the pilot staff were to moor and unmoor vessels, and maintain the gear, and if more men were employed he would simply not be able to find anything for them to do. He was satisfied that the men themselves had benefited under the previous local agreement. The commissioner adjourned the proceedings to consult the parties separately and together, but after considerable discussion no agreement was reached.