Employers Blame Union For Wharf Disputes

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31169, 20 September 1966, Page 1

Employers Blame Union For Wharf Disputes

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, September 19.

Port employers tonight said the Wellington and Mount Maunganui dock disputes were a result of union opposition to modern labour-saving cargo handling systems.

Nearly 2000 watersiders at the two ports have been dismissed after stopping work over allegations of unsafe working conditions. They agreed at stop-work meetings today to reject the employers’ conditions for a return to work.

Six other Wellington waterfront unions today promised to support the watersiders, and Lyttelton watersiders said they would refuse to handle any cargo diverted there from Wellington.

Mr V. P. Blakeley, deputy chairman of the Port Employers’ Association, said union fears of redundancy caused by mechanisation [could be behind the disputes. “It could be that the union, in adopting the attitude it has. is trying to frustrate employers’ attempts to introduce modern methods of work. “The 1965 order of the Waterfront Industry Tribunal already provides benefits which the unions agreed to accept in return for co-oper-ating in modernisation,” he said. Mr E. G. Thompson, walking delegate of the Watersiders’ Union, dismissed Mr Blakeley’s suggestion as “sheer nonsense.”

The Wellington dispute began over the loading of frozen meat on top of pallets of butter in a hold of the 11,143-ton Shaw Savill freighter Carnatic at Glasgow wharf.

The dispute at Mount . Maunganui, which was not at , first directly connected, involved the working of steam ’ winches aboard the Japanese i vessel Kaisei Maru. By tonight 26 ships at the ; two ports were idle. Within the next week 11 more overseas ships are due ’ at Wellington. 1 Wellington watersiders will ’ hold another meeting tomorrow morning, and there will .be a meeting of Mount I Maunganui and Tauranga ; dock workers on Wednesday, i Union officials expect the . meetings to vote to continue > the stoppage. Captain A. R. Stephenson, ■ cargo superintendent of Shaw • Savill, said the dispute began • not over safety but over pay- ; ment of “stoop money" for working in cramped condi- . tions. f It was only when the s union’s claim of 5s an hour • was rejected—the employers - offered 2s 6d and later 3s an r hour—that the safety issue was brought up, he said.

“The question of danger was only imported into the dispute when they failed to extract their own terms from the company,” he said. Mr Thompson said this was “completely wrong.” The employers had agreed that cramped conditions at the sides of the hold could be hazardous and had decided to load only the centre square under the hatch.

Captain Stephenson had taken part in discussions at which this was agreed, Mr Thompson said. “Stoop money” had not been mentioned until a later meeting, when the employers had changed their minds and again asked for the sides of the hold to be loaded. The union had asked for national talks on conditions for loading on top of cargo in pallets, but this had nothing to do with “trying to save jobs,” he said.

Six other unions—the Harbour Board Employees’, Shipwrights’, Foremen Stevedores’, Seamen’s, Tally Clerks’ and Drivers’ Unions — voted today to support the watersiders.

The Port Chalmers Waterside Union will take no action in the meantime over the dismissals.

Mr E. Isbey, president of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ union, said tonight that the Auckland workers were taking no action at the moment. They were watching the position closely and would act if necessary.