THE PRESS SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1982. Unions and the Union Nelson

Press, 14 August 1982, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, AUGUST 14, 1982. Unions and the Union Nelson

Progress remains slow on the road to a settlement of the dispute over who should handle the cargo of the container vessel, Union Nelson. In common with many industrial disputes of this kind, the disagreement has escalated from small beginnings until millions of dollars and many jobs are at stake. The Union Nelson was heralded as the start of a new age in coastal shipping when it entered service early this year. It had the promise of reviving at least a part of this flagging trade. This dream was rudely shattered on the vessel’s first and, so far, only visit to Lyttelton by a demarcation dispute that kept the Union Nelson tied up for 18 days. The visit was in May. Three months later the dispute still drags on and now the owners of the ship, the Union Shipping Group, have said the Union Nelson might be laid up or sold. Such an action could imperil the future of coastal shipping. It would mean the end to the jobs of the ship’s 36 crew, as well as removing work for harbour board employees and waterside workers at Nelson, New Plymouth, Onehunga, and Lyttelton. At issue is the employment of three harbour board employees at Lyttelton to handle Union Nelson cargo on two days in each fortnight. Before the Union Nelson made its first call at Lyttelton on the scheduled service, the company arranged that the work of these three harbour board employees would be done by waterside workers. There lies, the root of the problem. A Waterfront Industry Tribunal hearing on the dispute laid the blame at the door of the company. Certainly, the company’s actions were

short-sighted and unlikely to secure a smooth passage for the $lB million ship. The inevitable strife should have been foreseen. Unfortunately, the hearing did not end the dispute. The issues were defined, but were not settled. The parties were left to work out their own agreement. Agreement is in sight, but has not yet been achieved. The company has proposed a compromise that would enable the service to continue, calling at Lyttelton as originally planned. Lyttelton’s waterside workers apparently have no objection to the proposal; the harbour board employees have countered with some amendments. While the dialogue continues, hope remains. The intervening months have shown that Lyttelton must be included in the service if the ship’s run is to be economic. In the meantime the Union Nelson has been plying a truncated route and losing money. This cannot be expected to continue. For Canterbury manufacturers, who have long complained about inadequate coastal shipping through Lyttelton, the prospect of losing the Union Nelson is a bleak one. The time for blame and recriminations is past. Lyttelton has proved to be a cornerstone and a stumbling block for the infant service. The block clearly needs to be removed. The parties to the dispute now display a spirit of compromise and a willingness to achieve a settlement. Their present attitude is welcome, if overdue. They should be encouraged by the thought that the success or failure of their efforts is important to many people other than themselves.