“Restrictive” Waterfront Practices Attacked

Press, Volume CI, Issue 30004, 13 December 1962, Page 16

“Restrictive” Waterfront Practices Attacked

The present “grave and deliberate inefficiencies” in cargo handling are of incalculable cost to the community in terms of increased costs and higher mark-ups, say the chairman of the Southland Harbour Board (Mr E. N. Adams) and Mr S. C. Scott, of Dunedin, a member of the Trade Promotion Council, in a report to the Trade Promotion Council. “The inefficiencies are extremely inflationary, and most costly to Netv Zealand in terms of increased freights, thus reducing overseas earnings; and, in many cases, because of the resultant increased cost of imported materials and resultant higher freight rates, they present a very great barrier to increased exports,” says the report, which has been circulated to branch associations by the New Zealand Manufacturers’ Federation.

The report says that New Zealand spends about £4sm a year in freight. It adds that the managing-director of the Royal Inter-Ocean Lines, Hong Kong (Mr D. Reyneker), reports that a ton of cargo costs six guilders to load or unload in Amsterdam and 25 guilders to load or unload in New Zealand. After listing “restrictive practices” used by waterfront workers, the report says that the man-hours actuallyworked an the waterfront fall far below hours paid for. This is the root of all the trouble, it says. Messrs Adams and Scott say that the following restrictive practices, adopted by waterside workers, contribute to delays of vessels and unnecessary increases in handling costs: — “(a) Going slow to ensure an order back for overtime work which could be avoided if norma] rate of work had been maintained. Once the order back is given, the tempo of work quickens and, on occasions, the job completed without the necessity of working back, although the minimum payment for overtime has still been made.

“(b) Stopping work unnecessarily for weather without either the consent of the employer or weather committee.

“(c> When handling refrigerated cargo in freezer waggons, regulating the speed of handling to ensure that the opening up of another waggon before ending work cannot be justified, in the knowledge that it is not desirable to leave part-waggons of meat, and so on, on a wharf after work because of the risk of it becoming soft before work resumes. “(d) For the reasons above and for other reasons, workers tend to stop work earlier than is necessary for the replacement of hatches, and so on.”

The report notes: “While powers exist in the bureau rules to correct these abuses, employers appear either unable or unwilling to exercise them, possibly for fear of reprisal; but if we are sincere in calling for reduced costs, someone has got to make a stand at some stage.”

Improvements Suggested The possibility of working shifts cm the wharves, as in Australia and most overseas ports, when availability of labour permits, must be investigated, the report says. “Preliminary discussions have been held, but as labour availability varies throughout New Zealand, it is the provision to work shifts which is the vital point, particularly for exports.” The report suggests a labour allocation committee to decide which distribution amongst the ships is in the best interests of working the port. This is done in Timaru. where every vessel gets some labour.

The practice in many ports, it says, is first in, first served, with the result that She first ship on many occasions takes more gangs than it can use at the time in order to keep control of the labour for a day or two days

ahead, while another ship in the same port at the same time will stand idle for lack of labour. A liaison committee on congestion is also suggested. This, the report says, would ensure proper integration of discharge of vessels in New Zealand ports after a hold-up in United Kingdom ports, or other emergencies. On these occasions, the report says, watersiders work longer hours than carriers and storemen. A system of emergency shift work by master carriers and the simplification’ of awards to enable one storeman to open up for receipt of goods at night should therefore be considered. Hours Of Work “A determined effort must be made to sec that tilie prescribed hours are actually worked. The direction, or supervision, of work is of prime importance. The manhours actually worked on the waterfront fall far below hours paid for. This is the root of all the trouble,” the report says. “The weakness of the stevedoring system is its cost-plus basis, no party having any incentive to reduce costs and increase efficiency. It is easier to obtain a freight increase than to have conflict with the unions.”

Provision must be made, the report adds, for the removal of hatches before the beginning of working hours, and replacement of batches after working hours. Actual stevedoring work, it says, starts about 20 minutes after official commencement of the watersiders’ working hours and stops 20 minutes early while a few members of each gang remove and replace hatch covers.

“This is regarded as a ■perquisite’ on the waterfront. and loses about 40 minutes a man a day. Most overseas masters would be quite willing to use their crews to remove hatch covers before waterfront work begins and replace them after work finishes." The report advocates more elasticity in the fixing of waterfront gang strengths, particularly when mechanisation is used and not all men can be fully employed. “More

often than not, gang strengths are in excess of what is necessary. It should be a rule that a man be not allocated to a gang unless he can be physically occupied in it.” Sling loads should be what the lifting gear can handle, with proper regard to safety and efficient working. At present, sling loads are determined by the men. Contract System

“A question for consideration is whether the present contract system worked on the waterfront is effective, as an incentive system, and whether it can be justified in relation to cost, particularly where profits are pooled and paid quarterly to all men as lump sums. “A ‘bonus’ on the waterfront is a sum in addition to award wages (for example. 2s 6d an hour) which is agreed between the stevedore and the union before work begins; thus it does not provide the slightest incentive for quicker work—rather the reverse.

“A genuine incentive system which rewards the efficient worker in proportion to his efficiency is imperative.” Conclusions reached in the report are that facilities in New Zealand measure up well to those available in overseas ports. New Zealand harbour boards should be encouraged to install mechanical loading and other plant, provided action by the unions would not prevent maximum use of this plant. The report notes that waterfront unions are already demanding compensating pay—pay for no work—where mechanical loading equipment is likely to be introduced. "It is not felt that the establishment of a transport commissioner or a new department of transport is a first priority.” the report says. The port operations themselves should first be examined.

"Ports as they are at present equipped and, taking into account improvements envisaged. should provide overseas ships with an efficient service.

“The trouble lies in the labour and equipment administration and productivity—in other words, what we get out of the labour and equipment now available.”