WHARF DELAYS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 110, 3 February 1938, Page 12

WHARF DELAYS

Watersiders’ Reply To Recent Criticism EMPLOYERS BLAMED At a stop-work meeting yesterday the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union decided that an official reply should be given to the statements which have appeared recently in the Press regarding the dispute on the Port Campbell and the charge that the waterside workers were responsible for damage to the fruit which was discharged from the Rangatira on January 26. The following letter has been received by “The Dominion” from the secretary of the branch, Mr. J. 0. Johnson: — “To the charges of imperilling the safe-handling and carriage of frozen or chilled beef on the Port Campbell, and of causing damage to the Rangatira’s fruit we definitely plead not guilty. We go further and. state that the trouble in both cases was due to the action of the representatives of the employers. A Port Campbell Dispute. “We will deal with the Port Campbell ease first. It is true that an order to work the tea-hour at No. 1 hatch of the PortvCampbell was given, and that some of the men declined to work. Some of the men in this gang had told the employer early in tlie day that they would be unable to work through the meal hour for reasons which they gave, thus giving the employer the opportunity to procure substitutes in accordance with custom. Several of the men were perfectly willing to work, and said so. No attempt was made by the employer to ascertain how many of the men were willing to work, and the men attached to the gang on the wharf were never asked at all. “No attempt was made to obtain substitutes to fill the places of the men who did not desire to work. But all the men in the gang had accepted orders to resume work at 6 p.m. and to continue until midnight, if required, to finish loading the vessel, and this applies not only to the men at No. 1 hatch, but to every man employed on the ship. It is common ground that the men down below in No. 1 hatch were given the order to work through the tea-hour, and that a reply was received that some men would not work that hour. The foreman in charge walked away, but returned in a few minutes and sacked the whole gang. “If the employer was concerned w’ith the speedy loading of the ship he should hava done one of two things: tried to get substitutes for the men who were not prepared to work the teahour, or else send the men to tea and bring them back at 6 o’clock. . Had either course been taken there is no doubt whatever that the work of loading the vessel would have continued without, interruption. “But worse was to follow. The crew of the ship was then called upon and sent into No. 1 hatch to work in the place of the men who were sacked. The foreman must have known that this was simply ‘asking for trouble. “Everybody who has the slightest knowledge of the psychology of woikmust realise that when members of a union on a job 7 are sacked and their places filled by non-members, other members of the union will retuse to work w’ith them. If the employe! concerned in this case did not know this, he did not know his job. And if he did know it he was'directly and solely responsible for the refusal ot the other gangs refusing to carry on at 6 o’clock. Terms of the Award. “The officers of the, union are expected to carry out the award and see that the work is carried on in accordance with its terms. But the officers of the union, were faced with an impossible task under the circumstances. “They were not consulted before the men were sacked; and the officers would have deserved censure for askin" the men to work with non-mem-bers when members .of the union were available. A lot has been said aboiu ' carrying out the terms of the award, but we want to be shown a clause in the award which gives the employers the right to act as they did on this occasion. It is only fair to say that, had the employer on this job been instructed to do something to prevent the work proceeding, he could not have taken more effective steps to bring about a stoppage. “The next point to be corrected is that the men in No. 1 hatch were working chilled beef. They were not: ordinary frozen produce was being loaded in this hatch. Then the public was told that the men deliberately walked off the ship. They did nothing of the kind; they were sacked and -left the job protesting that the procedure forced upon them was out of order. The day following the dispute, was the transport workers’ picnic day, a close holiday on the waterfront. A meeting of the Bureau Control Board was called by the employers for 8 a.m. ou the day following the holiday to deal with a proposal from the employ-, ers to suspend all the-men from the Port Campbell for two days. In other words the employers insisted that the men who had been dismissed from the Port Campbell were not to get a job for two clear days and to give nonmembers preference over them. “Immediately the meeting was opened the Union’s representatives ed that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Control and should be dealt with by the Disputes Committee. The union contended that the bureau had no right to usurp the functions of the Disputes Committee. The job of the bureau is to distribute the work evenly over the whole of the membership; that and nothing more. “Tlie men are working under an agreement duly registered as an award of the Court of Arbitration and are subject to the industrial laws of the Dominion. There are adequate penalties provided for in the LC. and A. Act to deal with breaches of awards or industrial agreements and nobody knows that better than the. employers themselves. “In proof of this it is only necessaty to state that a number of our men are now waiting to answer in the Magistrates’ Court a charge of failing to work a tea-hour on the Port Gisborne, a ship belonging to the same company and stevedored by the Same firm of contractors. “However, the action of the employers’ representatives on the Board of Control was calculated to further aggravate the position and also to seriously prejjudice the smooth working of the ‘bureau which the employers profess to favour so strongly, and every effort by the Union’s representative to have‘the matter adjusted in accordance with the terms of the Disputes Committee Clause of the Award was strenuously opposed by the employers. < “Now the fruit on the Rangatira: If there was danger of the fruit deteriorating in (lie ship's hold if it was not put out on Monday, January 24, a soaking wet day, why did not the employers approach the officers of the

union ami ask for their assistance m getting it discharged? The officers of the union were not told anything about, the fruit until Thursday, the day after the picnic, when tli(j»Port Campbel! case was under discission. It was then stated that the fruit .was put out by the company’s permanent hands on picnic day, and that the fruit mis simply running out of the- cases. “We state unhesitatingly that . had the officers of the union been approached and told that the fruit was in danger of going bad, it would have been put out, in spite of the rain. There has never been a single ease in the last 20 years, at least, where our men have stood by and refused to assist when ships or their cargo are in danger. “The 'employers will agree that our men have always tackled and done the job or at least' have made everything safe, before they asked about payment or conditions. And if representations had been made to the union office about the Rangatira’s fruit it would have been discharged. We state that definitely. Willing to Work. z “When negotiations were proceeding for the present award, the Anchor Company approached the union and asked to allow the men to start work at 7 a.m. in order to ensure that a cargo of perishable fruit should be put out. Our men have long regarded the right to begin work not earlier than S a.m. as a very important, one might almost say a sacred, condition, yet, when the matter was explained to them, they went ahead and did the job without kuestion. They would do the same again if it was put up to them. We say that the fruit from the Rangatira would have been discharged ou the wet day bad the union office been approached and given the information that the fruit would not keep till the ship returned. “We repeat that the two cases under review’ were brought about by the action and/or inaction of the shipowners themselves, and that this kind of thing lends colour to the growing suspicion in certain quarters that a definite campaign to discredit the waterside workers is being deliberately carried <m.”