Wainui Dispute

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32145, 14 November 1969, Page 8

Wainui Dispute

Sir, The Seamen’s Union is endeavouring to show that employers should not have the right to choose their own employees. The second engineer of the Wainui is his company's representative in employing en-gine-room staff. The system of trying to impose on the Union Steam Ship Company a roster, regardless of the quality of the seaman, would be ludicrous if applied to the shore-based businessman. The inquiry committee’s proposal of employing the engineer and seaman on different ships was very generous and face-saying for the union—but it was rejected. Imagine a businessman arranging to have his workshop foreman transferred to another branch so that a worker might be employed without friction! It is time that union members woke up to the damage such strikes do to their country or there will not be any ships for them to man.—Yours, etc., G. D. McKENZIE. ; November 12, 1969

Sir, —As one of those affected 1 would |ike to make some comments about this illegal strike. The Seamen’s Award clearly states that the employer has the right to choose his employees. The engineer was acting under instructions from the master through the chief engineer. The Seamen’s Union operates a unofficial roster system which the employers have not always accepted. The employer did not refuse employment to the motorman in question, as he was offered a coastal ship. As for the decision of the so-called commission, in the past, decisions of this sort seem to have been made on the grounds of expediency rather than justice. I am sure you will agree that no land-based employer would agree to a union telling him whom he was to employ. What chance would a national line have under this sort of rule?— Yours, etc., ' LAW AND ORDER. November 13, 1969.