HARBOUR BOARD STAFF.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1473, 22 June 1912, Page 5

HARBOUR BOARD STAFF.

INQUIRY PENDING,

At a mooting of tlio "Wellington Tl-.vvr 'jour Board held on Thursday night, "Mr, .r. G. Ilarkness moved"Tlmt tliG Wharves and Quays Committee be authorised to consider niul report to tii'fi board in July, 1012, whether in their opii\ian it is advisable to reorganises tho Harbour Hoard stall', with the object ,pf funking tho taiuc thoroughly efficient, and. to make such recommendations as -.vill bring this about, if so desired."

Mr. Ilarkness said that he\had no cl<siro to reflect 011 tho work of the execu-. tive officers; it was a question as to whether the present system was justifying'tlip' expenditure, Reorganisation had frequently been talked of, but no practical, conclusion had been come to. The board

was the largest employer of labour, 1 ill tho city, but the system they were working on was absolutely at fault. During, the last two years they had increased tlie. wages of all hands by at least ,£9OOO. He did not advocate cheap wages, but thf-y wero not. getting the best for tho wage's, under tho present system. Recently,''it had taken days to discharge 800 toil's of cargo from the Athenic, and this with, tho conveniences at hand. The depigments wero now under different headsj. not under ono head, as formerly. - He' questioned the valuo of tho system . of' formation, and said that he feared tliat there- were too many permanent s haiid's. paid whether they worked or not. The; principle 011 which overtime \vas paid; was objectionable, and a great many men worked with the main object of making: overtime. Tho question was of such imparlance that it was well for the board. 1 to take it into consideration, and suggest a remedy.

The motion was seconded by Mr. J. vor, who said that he had been told that, wharf Labourers took much moro time' over their work than was necessary.

Mr. M. Cohen said that for the sake of the officers an inquiry into the indictment ought to be made, and for that rea- . son ho supported the motion. Tho system of promotion was quite fair. Mr. J. E. Fitzgerald opposed the motion, and said that Mr. Harkness should;, not have made' vague allegations, but'; should have placed something specific be"- i foro tlie board.

Mr. P. C. Freeth also spoke against the ; motion. „ , , , . ■■■ The chairman (Mr. K. v Fletcher) dfo. elared that not a single statement made.,': by Mr. Harkness in this matter would':' stand a test. The discharging of a vessel did not rest with the wharf workers;;, tliev did not stevedore the vessels. A.-; while ago the Athenic had discharged 7000;, tons in five days. Mr. Harkness's criti— ; cism of the cost of working was not _ cor-'.; rcct. In the.last four years the ratio of:.: expenditure to revenue had been 63.09 per.;, cent., 63.01, 62.01, and 01.08. He sup-.;; ported tho motion in order to secure an/; "Messrs. Freeth and Fitzgerald said they=i would decline to sit and hear cvidenco on'.: such a ground-work. Tho motion wascarried. The division, was:—Ayes: Cobbe, Cohen, Daniell. Flet-\ cher, Harkn«ss, M'Farlnnc, Trevor.': Noes: Fitzgerald, Freeth, M'Ewan, Hil-: ; dreth.