Application in container dispute

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33520, 29 April 1974, Page 8

Application in container dispute

f.V.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON. April 28. An attempt by the Waterside Workers Federation to get Wages Tribunal approval of an industrial agreement covering ofl'-wharf Sea Cargo container depots was adjourned today, when the tribunal was not certain it had the power to handle the mattei.

The application related to an agreement between the watersiders and the freight forwarders, and included al-

terations required by the Minister of Labour (Mr Watt), said the watersiders’ advocate, the federation’s national secretary (Mr E. G. Thomson).

But Mr N. R. Taylor, S.M., the chairman of the Tribunal, said the application seemed to be not a new instrument, but an amendment to an existing one.

Counsel for the freight forwarders, Mr R. R. Richards, had said earlier the present document covering such work was the storemen and packers’ award.

The Storemen and Packers’ Union, with Mr J. H. Dunn and Miss S. M. Moran as counsel, successfully sought to be made a party to the hearing. ORIGINAL PARTIES

Miss Moran said Mogal Transportation, Ltd, and Sea Freightways, Ltd (the two depots affected) were the original parties to the storemen and packers’ award. Her clients had filed an application in the Supreme Court in December seeking to have declared unlawful an order made by the Minister of Labour (Mr Watt) on November 27, 1973, designating the two depots as places where watersiders should do the work. Statements of defence had only just been filed and the parties were waiting for a date for the hearing. Their application sought also that the Minister be restrained from designating any other off-wharf depots under rule 7(a) of the watersiders’ rules. This was the rule which was amended on the approval of the then Minister of Labour (the late Mr Shand) in September, 1970. The effect of the amendment was to allow watersiders to handle containers on off-wharf depots designated by the Minister. ROYAL COMMISSION

A subsequent Royal Commission said it could see no reason for anv such designation or any change in the pattern of work established over the vears whereby storemen and packers did the work in consolidators’ depots, and watersiders did it on the wharf. The commission recommended that no action be taken bv the Minister to designate such depots, and no action be taken by the Government to amend the definition of waterside work. On November 27. Mr Watt [mentioned.

designated the two depots Mr Taylor said he could not understand “how an amendment to the society’s jset of rules could empower ;a Minister to in effect, break ’the law.” On the fact of it, he said, .it seemed back to front: an extraordinary situation. “LOSING WORK’’

Mr Thomson submitted that work historically done by watersiders “seemed to be going elsewhere.” The question of the issue was to protect the interests of waterside workers. Membership was shrinking because of changes' in cargo handling. In Wellington, for example, ■union membership was now 1’.051, whereas it had been 1600 a few years ago.

Mr Taylor said there seemed to be an existing instrument covering such offwharf work — the storemen and packers’ award. If it was

an amendment, then the Tn

bunal could not deal with it because these were “frozen” : till June 30. Mr Richards had submitted , that award did not apply be- ■ cause it had not gone to the Remuneration Authority, then in existence. TRIBUNAL'S POWERS Even if it were a new instrument, and the Tribunal ' was not convinced it was, the Tribunal’s powers were still limited, said Mr Taylor. Proposing an adjournment iso that Mr Thomson could iget legal advice on these asipects of the Triunbal’s situation, Mr Taylor said: “We believe we have stretched the [regulations to the limits in order to achieve industrial I harmony in the count ry, but iwe are bound by the law.” ! No date was set for the ihearing to resume. Mr Taylor [noted, however, that the Tribunal would go out of existence on June 30.