Costs of ports dispute

Press, 27 July 1989, Page 12

Costs of ports dispute

Port companies attempting to have resolved the demarcation dispute between watersiders and harbour workers could face a bill of $1 million to present their case to the Labour Court. This sum is the estimate of the chief executive of the Port of Timaru, Mr Brian Tierney, who says the cost could have been avoided if the Government’s attempt to reform the waterfront industry had been spelled out in more precise legislation. Mr Tierney may have overestimated the probable cost to the port companies of the Labour Court hearing; but he accurately identifies the root of the problem. Quite apart from legal expenses, this has cost the ports and their users thousands of dollars already in bitter stoppages. Undeniably, reform of the New Zealand port system was long overdue. The general thrust of the Government’s effort has gained favour, yet the Government’s unwillingness to grasp the nettle of the labour market, on the wharves as elsewhere in the economy, has led to the confrontation on wharves up and down the country.

The stated cause of the dispute between the two unions is the watersiders’ claim to the right to use machinery owned by the port companies and which traditionally has been driven by harbour workers. Realistically, what is at stake is the continued existence of the harbour workers’ jobs. Harbour workers acknowledge that rationalisation on the wharves will mean job redundancies. They fear that, if the watersiders succeed in their claim, the only redundancies will be among

harbour workers. Even a half-awake Government could have foreseen the demarcation dispute arising as a result of the legislation’s casual regard to labour matters; and, just in case the Government was nodding off altogether, the unions, harbour boards, and port users painted a clear picture of just this outcome in a fruitless attempt to get the Government to sort out the tangle before putting the changes into effect.

The juggernaut of reform would not be slowed. Whatever were the Government’s intentions in the matter, they were not expressed clearly enough for the Labour Court to make a useful determination in any of the several attempts to resolve the dispute that has been taken to it. The Labour Court will hear the next of these attempts in September — the hearing that Mr Tierney thinks could be so expensive. In effect, the Government invited the dispute between the watersiders and the harbour workers and has retired to the sidelines, leaving the Labour Court to sort out the mess and the port companies to foot the bill. In the long run, that cost will be extracted from port users and the wider community. The Minister of Transport, Mr Jeffries, insists that demarcation disputes were not the intended outcome of the legislation, and the Government continues to disavow any responsibility. In spite of this attempt to distance itself, the Government risks a political cost among the other, more tangible bills arising from the wrangle.