Dredge Hours Extended To 66 A Week As Trial

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28604, 5 June 1958, Page 9

Dredge Hours Extended To 66 A Week As Trial

Extended hours of 66 hours a week by workers on the suction dredge Canterbury, were approved by the Lyttelton Harbour Board yesterday, when the alternative of double shifts on the dredging for the harbour extensions was discussed in committee. The extended hours will be given a trial for three months, after which the working of double shifts by the dredge will be reexamined by the board. Referring to a report in last Saturday’s issue of ’The Press” on the working of the dredge and the threatened dismissal of quarry workers because of the dredge staff’s refusal to work double shifts, Mr W. B. Laing asked: "Who gave this report?” The chairman <Mr W. P. Glue): You ask them.

“I don’t want to use any personalities in open board, because I have been accused before of doing that.” said Mr Laing. “I am prepared to discuss it in committee. The works committee met in committee and nothing should have gone out to the press until it came before the board.” The report in “The Press” was

untrue and conflicting, said Mr Laing. The report said new anchors to enable the dredge to ln ± ore ere fitted 12 months h®?’ ( 7 he " der was placed then but the anchors had been installed only a week or so before the report appeared.

’ It did not come from anv res- , ponsible officer,” said the Sec- ’ retary-manager (Mr A. L Burk) ’ r, WaS run J up by a reporter and he seemed to know all about i things, said Mr Glue. “The only i eomment I made, which was pubI llshed, was that it would be re- ' ported to the next meeting of this ’ board. There was no harm in do- ■ ing that.” Executives’ Denial ■ Mr Burk said the reporter intervmwed the engineer-in-chief ■ M . r "■ A - Cashin) and himself, t and th e only information given ’ k a . s that the question was coming 1 .V? T re board in a report. .. Using the usual technique of : the journalist, the reporter trailI ed down the chairman,” said Mr [ Burk. Mr F. L Sutton complained of ; inaccuracies in the report. Mr Burk: You all know the technique. “There is no doubt that somewhere in the works committee there was a leakage,” said Mr J. Brand. “There was only the committee and the executive officers there and there must have been a leakage. I agree with Mr Laing is a serious thing. Board members should not read in the papers what has happened in commit|tee and before we report back to the board.’ ’

Mr Glue said the reporter was not pepared to tell him from where the information had been obtained.

“And I am sorry, Mr Laing, that you think the chairman has given out something he should not have,” said Mr Glue. Mr G. Manning: All I can say he is a smart reporter.