‘Back-door’ approach by waterfront unions

Press, 14 March 1985, Page 4

‘Back-door’ approach by waterfront unions

PA Wellington Waterfront industry unions called L.P.G. a new product to “get through the back door” in a demarcation dispute, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday. Mr Murray Edwards, counsel for the Engineers’ Union, said this when replying to submissions made on behalf of the New Plymouth Waterfront Workers’ Union. The Court has been asked to decide, among other things, whether the Arbitration Court and the Waterfront Industry Tribunal have concurrent jurisdiction to deal with matters within the scope of the Waterfront Industry Act, 1976, and whether the work in issue is "waterside work.”

The New Plymouth Waterfront Union is appellant.

Respondents are the Engineers’ Union; the Drivers’ Union; the Northern Industrial District and Hawke’s Bay Province Storepersons and Packers and Warehouse Workers’ Union; the Canterbury and Westland Stores, Packing and Warehouse Union; the Labourers’ Union; the Federated Store-

men and Packers’ Union; and Liquigas, Ltd. The hearing will continue today.

Mr Tony Ford, counsel for the New Plymouth Waterfront Workers’ Union, said the hearing had its origins in a dispute over who should load and unload the new bulk L.P.G. tanker Tarahiko at the Newton King Wharf at Port Taranaki.

In February, 1984, the bulk L.P.G. tanker Coral Gas was chartered by Liquigas to carry L.P.G. from Port Taranaki to Dunedin. It was the first shipment of L.P.G. in bulk. Formerly L.P.G. had been carried in cylinders handled by waterside workers.

On April 5, 1984, a voluntary agreement was entered into between Liquigas and the Engineers’ Union covering, among other things, the work involved in transferring L.P.G. from and to sea tankers.

Correspondence between the Waterside Workers’ Federation followed but without satisfactory resolution of objections raised by the federation to the agreement.

On August 3, 1984, the Arbitration Court ruled that the Engineers’ Union could not, under its rules, negotiate or enter into an agreement on behalf of workers relating to the manufacture, compression, and distribution of L.P.G.

It declared the agreement between Liquigas and the Engineers’ Union invalid.

Mr Ford said that the first question in the case stated was whether the Arbitration Court and the Waterfront Industry Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction to deal with matters within the scope of the Waterfront Industry Act, 1976.

“It is the appellant’s basic submission that they do not, because the Waterfront Industry Act, 1976, confers an exclusive jurisdiction on the Waterfront Industry Tribunal to deal with matters within the scope of the Waterfront Industry Act,” he said. Under section 39 of the Waterfront Industry Act, persons (members of the waterfront workers’ unions) who were registered under section 38 of the act had a

special preference in the carrying out of waterside work.

Under section 33 any agreement which related to a matter which “could be the subject of an order of the tribunal” must be filed with the tribunal.

Mr Edwards, in submissions for the Engineers’ Union, said that his client considered the jurisdiction matter of particular importance because the union was a national one with about 60,000 members. Members had been involved for many years in a variety ofjobs on or about the wharf. In particular, union members had historically been involved in loading, unloading, or handling bulk petroleum products and other bulk products. “Obviously the waterfront industry unions cannot claim bulk petroleum product,” Mr Edwards said. “This is an attempt to get in through the back door by saying L.P.G. is a new product.

“Put simply, the Engineers’ Union has little, if any, status under the Waterfront Act.”