Tribunal’s Ruling On Bulk Tallow Loading

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30593, 9 November 1964, Page 11

Tribunal’s Ruling On Bulk Tallow Loading

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, November 8. The waterfront Industry Tribunal has released its decisions in the recent dispute regarding the loading of bulk tallow. The tribunal was asked to interpret the provisions of general principal order No. 225 dated August 6, 1964.

The tribunal dealt at length with its decision to decline the application of Mr J. E. Napier, for the Northern, Taranaki, Wellington, and Canterbury Federation of Waterside Unions’ Industrial Association of Workers, to call evidence and said:

“An application for interpretation under Section 12 (c) is not the proper procedure for deciding- the rights and wrongs of local disputes.

“If the employers have misconstrued the effect of a provision in a principal order and a dispute has in consequence arisen in any port, it is for the local port conciliation committee to deal with the dispute subject to the right of the parties to appeal to this tribunal. “In such a case the tribunal would, if necessary, inquire into and decide on the facts in dispute. “It is quite impracticable for the tribunal to decide on an application for interpretation whether employers generally have adopted a wrong interpretation of a principal order, and to deal with the matter as a dispute. “To have admitted the evidence Mr Napier desired to call would have entitled the employers to obtain evidence in rebuttal and might have involved an inquiry into happenings in a large number of ports throughout New Zealand.

“Such an inquiry is quite out of place upon an application under Section 12 (c).

“Not Called For” “Before an application under this clause is entitled to succeed the tribunal must be satisfied that there is need for a clarification of the terms of the principal order. “Mr Napier directed little of his argument to this aspect of the matter and appeared rather to be contending that principal order No. 225 was in need of amendment. “We have carefully considered the wording of the order and are of opinion that it is perfectly clear and that no interpretation is called for. “We do not, of course, claim that the order is sufficiently detailed to. cover every question which may arise in relation to the loading of bulk tallow or every set of circumstances under which that operation may be carried out. “It should be well known to

the parties that it is quite impossible for any principal order to provide for every situation which may arise and that where a situation arises which is not specifically dealt with by the order it is the duty of the parties to seek to reach agreement and if agreement cannot be reached to have the matter referred to the port conciliation committee. Not Binding “It is in order to assist the parties when such a situation arises that the tribunal has adopted the practice of attaching a memorandum to its principal orders. “The purpose of the memorandum is two-fold: First,, to explain the reasons for the decisions of the tribunal and. second, to suggest how the order should be applied in situations not expressly dealt with. “It should be fully understood, however, that the memorandum is not part of the order and has no binding legal effect. “Not being part of the order, the terms of the memorandum do not fall within the scope of Section 12 (c) of the Act and there is no provision for an application to interpret a memorandum to a principal order. “Notwithstanding that we are of opinion that the provisions to which the application relates need no clarification, we propose to deal shortly with the questions directed to the tribunal by the union. Extra Men “1. Clause 2: What are the conditions of work that warrant employment of extra men? “It is neither practicable nor desirable to attempt to define conditions which may warrant the employment of extra men. “Each case is one for settlement by negotiation or by reference to the port conciliation committee. “2. Clause 5: Does the work of loading bulk tallow during meal hours only involve stand-ing-by pumping operations or does the tribunal intend the work to be performed by one man during a meal hour to involve all work necessary for

the loading of bulk tallow, including the work of setting up and dismantling the hose, connecting and disconnecting the tanker, draining the hose, and moving the tanker into position when necessary? “Clause 5 clearly implies that the number of men required to work a meal must be determined by the nature of the work expected to be required during the meal hour in order that the loading of bulk tallow’ may continue, if desired by the employer, without interruption. “This is solely within the knowledge of the employer so that it is for him to say whether one or more workers will be needed if mealhour work is required. “The number required to work the meal hour should be appropriate for the work to be carried out, having regard to the conditions of work and the size of the gang employed. Men’s Safety “3. Clause 7: (A) What is likely to involve the safety of a worker? “Principal order No. 198 makes provision for the protection of workers where safety is endangered and the union is well aware that it has never been considered practicable to define in advance the circumstances in which a question of safety may arise. “We think it desirable to point out that the counterproposals of the union on the

hearing of the application for principal order No. 225 made no reference to safety, nor was any mention of safety or any suggestion that the loading of bulk tallow was a dangerous occupation made in the submissions filed by the union on that occasion. “The provision for safety which now appears in Clause 7 of order No. 225 was inserted by the tribunal of its own motion for the benefit of the men. “Order No. 225 provides that save as specifically provided therein the general conditions of work described in principal order No. 198 shall apply to the loading of bulk tallow. “Order No. 198 makes ample provision for the settlement of any dispute arising out of conditions of work which may endanger the safety of workers. Work In Rain “(B) What would involve working lengthy periods in the rain? “This question has reference to the tribunal’s memorandum and must, in our opinion, be determined by the exercise of common sense in any circumstances which may arise. “(C) To what extent is the reference in the tribunal’s memorandum to similar work on scheduled passenger ships legally involved in the decision.

“We find it difficult to understand what is meant by the term ‘legally involved’ but have already pointed out that nothing in the memorandum has binding force, as it is not part of the principal order.”