Appeal On Pay For Work With Meat Loader

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30154, 11 June 1963, Page 14

Appeal On Pay For Work With Meat Loader

(New Zealand Press Association)

INVERCARGILL, June 10.

The Waterfront Industry Tribunal today reserved its decision on an appeal by the Port Employers’ Association against a decision of the chairman of the Bluff Port Conciliation Committee awarding watersiders Is an hour for working under cover in holds being worked by all-weather mechanical meat loaders.

The appeal was supported by the Southland Harbour Board and opposed by the Bluff Waterfront Workers’ Union.

The tribunal is Judge K. G. Archer (chairman), Messrs W. E. Hodges and W. J Cuthbert. In submissions on behalf of the Harbour Board, the secretary (Mr N. D. Cullan) said ’he board was disturbed that a payment had been granted for undercover work on the Port Auckland.

“While fully in accord with tihe provision of good working conditions for the men. the board would prefer to see any similar problem Investigated and if necessary overcome, where possible by alteration to the temporary hatch cover or other part of the loading equipment rather than by perpetuating the problem by the payment of an additional allowance. “On account of the high cost of loaders,” said the board, "with a resultant high hire charge necessary of at least £1 a ton of cargo loaded, the board is concerned lest any accumulation of hire charge, special allowances. and greatly-increased profit distribution, together with the retention of the normal strength loading gangs, may mitigate against the economics of the loaders and discourage shipowners from using them fully in the future.

“The result could only lead toian increase in the tonnage rate charged for the hire of the loaders which would in turn further accentuate the position,” the board submitted.

For the employers, the general secretary (Mr V P Blakeley) contended that the decision of the chairman of the Port Conciliation Committee should be stood aside on two groundsill) Because the decision sought to establish the basis of payment for all future vessels and was. in fact, pro-

viding a local condition of employment which was outside the jurisdiction of the Port Conciliation Committee, and

(2) Because the award of Is an hour additional to the men in the'hold of the Port Auckland and any subsequent vessel when working at the conveyor in wet weather was not justified on the evidence available. The -employers contended that a medical report on relative temperatures in closed and open holds was evidence that ventilation in the closed holds was adequate. The temperature was unlikely to affect health and was well within the normal freezer range provided tn tribunal orders

“Not Honoured”

The union, represented by its president, Mr R W Powley, said it was a matter of grave concern when verbal assertions were made in committee and were not honoured at a later date

It was agreed that the committee chairman’s decision would be acceptable and final to all. The employers, how-

ever, had refused to make the payment awarded by the chairman and after two weeks thi- union had asked why The employers still refused to make the additional payment he said

“I am pleased to report, ' said Mr Powley, “thait in spite of the employers refusing to make the payment of Is an hour, the members of the union continued to work under cover on the meal loader whenever required by the employer ” After submissions had concluded Judge Archer said to M. Blakely: “Your representatives on the Conciliation Committee did not raise the question of reference of this dispute to the tribunal They were satisfied with the chairman’s decision Surely, they can look after themselves." Judge Archer said it was a serious thing for the employers to say that a clear statement (that there would be no appeal) by the committee chairman was not the truth “I must accept the chairman's statement, although the right of the employers to appeal contained, in statute is unquestioned."