Court excludes L.P.G. from waterfront work

Press, 23 March 1985, Page 6

Court excludes L.P.G. from waterfront work

PA Wellington The Court of Appeal has ruled that the work of loading and unloading bulk liquefied petroleum gas at the Port of Taranaki is excluded from the definition of waterfront work. The Court has dismissed an appeal by the New Plymouth Waterfront Workers’ Union under the Industrial Relations Act, 1983.

The Court comprised Sir Owen Woodhouse (president), Mr Justice Cooke, and

Mr Justice Richardson.

Sir Owen, in the judgment, said a demarcation dispute over L.P.G. loading — involving the local Waterfront Workers’ Union, the Engineers’ Union, and the Storemen and Packers’ Union — went to the Arbitration Court.

However, at the beginning of the hearing, on September 12, 1984, the Court raised a preliminary question of jurisdiction. It wanted to know whether the

work at New Plymouth was waterside work that should come under the jurisdiction of the Waterfront Industry Tribunal.

Sir Owen said that in his opinion there was no question of jurisdiction by the Waterfront Industry Tribunal. “On the basis that the handling of bulk L.P.G. at the Port of New Plymouth is not waterside work, it is outside the ambit of the Waterfront Industry Act, 1976.”

He said that, in essence, the Arbitration Court ruled that immediately before April 1, 1977, all kinds of bulk petroleum products were handled by employees other than waterside workers.

It also held that L.P.G. was to be regarded as a petroleum product, but it also said the handling of bulk L.P.G. was completely new work, which had not been customarily performed by anybody at Port Taranaki before 1977.

All of those findings were accepted by the parties. What was questioned in the appeal was whether the Arbitration Court was right to decide, in effect, that the handling of bulk L.P.G. would qualify as an exception to waterside work.