WHARF HOLD-UPS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 105, 28 January 1938, Page 6

WHARF HOLD-UPS

Criticism By Wellington Harbour Board FULL INQUIRY SOUGHT Men Alleged To Be “Not Playing The Game” Recent hold-ups on the Wellington waterfront, due in one instance (o watersiders refusing to unload fruit from the Rangatira because of rain, and in the second case to wharf labourers ceasing work during the loading of chilled beef on the Port Campbell because of a dispute over the tea-interval clause, were the subject of outspoken comment at last night’s meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board, when a resolution that a full inquiry he made and the result discussed in open meeting was carried.

Alleging that the watersiders had not played the game, several members expressed strong criticism of their action, contending that it was unjustified and likely to lead to the ruin of hundreds of small, struggling farmers. It was stated that the watersiders had broken the terms of their agreement, resulting, in one instance, in the almost complete loss, through deterioration, of a fruit shipment from Central Otago, and a heavy loss to the growers. The Hon. W. Nash, and Mr, C. 11. Chapman, M.P., contended that no decision could be peached until the case for the men was heard. Mr. M. A. Elliott said the situation had been discussed informally that morning, and it was too serious to go on without comment. There were three salient points. On the one hand the Farmers’ Union had complained about the treatment of primary produce by the watersiders on its arrival at the Wellington wharves, then there was the statement that the matter was outside the province of the board, and thirdly, there was the statement by the secretary of the Watersiders’ Union that the men had been unjustly treated. Here were three different opinions. and ib was in the interests of all concerned that the matter should be thoroughly investigated and a full, fair and impartial statement made and discussed by the board in open meeting. The good name of the harbour was also at stake, and it was of paramount importance that the board should investigate every aspect. ‘‘There was also the even more important aspect that hundreds of small farmers and fruitgrowers had been adversely affected through the action of the watersiders in refusing to handle perishable produce. Fanners’ Complaint. Mr. H. Morrison said any delay in the handling of chilled beef was most serious. He did not think the watersiders had played the game fairly., Thousands of pounds worth of chilled beef had been neglected. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Industry knew the serious repercussions likely to result. Speaking as a practical farmer, Mr. Morrison said that If there was an industry in the Dominion- requiring, every assistance it was the chilled beef trade, which was still in its infancy. If the market overseas were to be maintained it was essential to maintain the quota. “All we ask as farmers is a fair deal to enable our produce to reach tlie Home market promptly and in good condition,” said Mr. Morrison. There had been a certain amount of discontent among farmers at the way they were being treated, and they felt they had every justification for such discontent. Tlie same circumstances applied to the fruit industry. Fruit could not afford to be held up. Small, struggling farmers would be ruined if these conditions were allowed to continue. Facts Outlined. Mr. W. M. Price, in explaining tlie facts, said that the men refused to unload fruit from the Rangatira because it was raining heavily. "It is true the weather was very wet, but at the Lyttelton steamer wharf there is good shelter,” he said. “The Rangatira had 1400 cases of soft fruit, to land which had been railed from southern districts. There was only one and a half hours’ work to unload this and under cover, but though the men were under pay all the time they declined to work because it was raining. The result was that the fruit was carried back to Lyttelton to be landed on the return on Wednesday. When the fruit was landed, however, because of the delay, it was almost useless, some of it running out of the cases, causing a heavy loss to the small fruit-grower in the south who had had to pay railage and the cost of the cases, apart from the value of the fruit. This could have been avoided by working the hour and a half. “With the Awatea from Sydney, because of rain, the men again declined to work discharging mails and Juggage, and the passengers had to handle a lot of their own personal effects, assisted by harbour board permanent men and the crew. I am afraid our Australian visitors would go away with a poor opinion of the facilities provided by those whose duty it is to supply them. These instances, in my opinion, Show a want of consideration for the community at large and tend to bring the waterside Industry into disrepute.” Mr. Price said he was sorry to have to tell these facts, it was also to bo regretted that the hard labours of southern fruit-growers had gone for nothing. The fact that the bard work of many small growers had gone for nothing was to be deplored, said Mr. T. R. Barrer. Ruin did not prevent them harvesting their crop, but it evidently did prevent watersiders handling it. Mr, Barrer cited the case of a Wairarapa grower who had paid £BOO in wages for the harvesting of a crop. It was unfair that he or anyone similarly placed should be put in the position of losing the reward of his labour. That a few showers or even continuous rain should prevent the unloading of fruit was intolerable, more so as the wharf labourers were paid for waiting time. “It is time this sort of thing was ended,” said Mr. Barrer. “Here we have one section of the community receiving good pay and refusing to work, and yet we have no apparent rcineedy.” Mr. Barrer said many people were wondering what the board was doing. It was the board's duty to see that the mutter was fully investigated. Case for Watersiders. “There cannot be two opinions but that our primary produce must be dispatched without, delay mid in the best condition, and anything which tends to interfere with this smooth working should be invesigated,” said the Hon. W. Nash. However, he felt that, the board should be fi:'r to the men and hear their side of tlie case before condemning them. lie had gathered his information from a newspaper report, and it. seemed that: trouble had arisen over the tea interval. The men had been condemned. They might have been wrong, but he considered it only right that their case should he heard. ' “Watersiders are jtist hs much primary producers as farmers, because unless you have someone skilled in handling farm

produce so that it can reach the consumer then it has no value,” said Mr. Nash. Mr. Morrison: 1 don’t agree. Mr. Nash went on to deal with the tea interval issue, when Mr. G. M. Lurrell interjected that his facts were incorrect. Mr. Nash: Then the newspaper report was wrong and the public have been misled. ... . - ~ , Mr. Turrell said the position could be explained quite simply. Under the bureau rules, agreed on by both parties, the men could be called on to work during the tea hour if necessary. This was frequently done. Mr. Nash remarked that there must surely be some way of settling such disputes on the spot. On the evidence before them it appeared that the chilled beef loading had been held up by the men, but he hoped that a fuller investigation would bring other facts to light. These facts should be made fully known. It was essential that there should be smooth working between all sections of the community. Mr. Turrell said that under the terms of the agreement one gang of 20 men was requested to work on during the tea interval from 5 till 6 o’clock loading the chilled beef. About 70 more men were detailed to come on duty at 6 o’clock. The first gang refused to comply with the request and was dismissed, members of the crew of tlie Bort Campbell stepping in and doing the work. When the second gang came on at 6 o’clock and found that their mates had been dismissed and the crew was on the job, they downed tools. Mr. Nash : I can quite understand the men wanting to go home to their tea. Their wives would be anxious and their arrangements upset. Condition of the Fruit. At this stage Mr. Nash queried whether at least half the fruit would not have been in bad condition even if unloaded on Monday. The facts outlined by Mr. Price suggested this. Fruit which was held up for a day or two and became bad would surely have been in poor condition if unloaded on Monday. Mr. Price remarked that shipments of fruit came frequently and had been in quite good order. Mr. Nash: Is it not correct that the agreement provides that the men shall not work in the rain? Mr. Brice said it would have been possible for the men to work on the sheltered Lvttelton ferry wharf. Mr. Nash: It is easy for us to criticise, but what members of the board would be prepared to work in the rain I Mr. Brice pointed out that the crew was quite prepared to do the loading. In reply to a further statement by Mr. Nash regarding the condition of the fruit, Mr. A. Fletcher explained that its confinement in a warm hold for several days would make the fruit go bad. Mr. Nash: What! Are holds allowed to get like that? Mr. Fletcher said the Rangatira was not equipped in the same manner as regular fruit cargo boats. . Mr. Nash reiterated that the full facts should be made known before the men were condemned. D. J. McGowan: You wouldn’t call it playing tlie game when men stand, by ■for eight hours on pay and do nothing, would you? Mr. Fletcher, in reply to Mr. Nash, contended that had the fruit been unloaded on Monday it would have been cleared from the auction markets by 11 o clock. Obviously fruit required quick dispatch to avoid deterioration, he said. Lhere had been little fault to find with previous shipments. “Discussion Premature.” Contending that the criticism levelled at the watersiders’ was premature until the full facts were known, Mr. C. IL Chapman pointed out that a committee was at present investigating the trouble over the loading of the chilled beet. He did not want to make any unnecessary excuses for the men until these details were known, but he could see a whole lot of excuses for the men not wanting to work during the meal hour. He also wanted to know if the 15 minutes notice as provided in the agreement was given. The men might also have been of the opinion that by not working through the tea hour the chilled beef would not have been affected. ... ... "These men know all there is to know about handling meat,” he said. ‘ Criticism has been levelled at them under the guise of asking for information, and I say that that is not playing the game.’ Dealing witli the fruit, Mr. Chapman said that no one could defend any action which would cause loss of foodstuffs, but the men had an equal right with the employers to determine whether it was too wet to work. “I hold that perishable foodstuffs should be unloaded, if not interfered with by wet weather, even if special pay is necessary, but the full circumstances are not known, and until then we should not criticise,” he said. Mr. Turrell said he agreed with Mr. Chapman on his main contention that the discussion was premature. The matter was already being investigated by a special committee. Mr. Turrell said he could assure Mr. Chapman that sufficient notice had been given. So far as loading chilled beef was concerned, such an industry depended for its success .on promptness and regularity in handling. The whole business was worked according to a schedule. If any interference or delay occurred the whole service was thrown out. At this stage Mr. Elliott said his contention from the outset had been that a full inquiry should be held so that the board could examine the facts. His motion to this effect was carried.