THE WATERFRONT HOLD-UP

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 122, 18 February 1944, Page 4

THE WATERFRONT HOLD-UP

A feeling among the public of national humiliation is being engendered by the latest, serious dislocations of work on waterfronts in this country. With that feeling there must surely be mingled a sense of bewilderment. What is the purpose, dr what is behind, the raising of apparently trivial disputes, and the disregard of machinery by which they may be settled without cessation of work, loss of time and money on the part of all concerned, and—what is worst —the disruption of vital wartime effort to which, as a community, we have pledged ourselves? For a long time past, in spite of' studied efforts by the authorities to provide equitable and, indeed, generous conditions of waterfront work, and to establish a system of control, and machinery for negotiation over points, of difference, that are markedly sympathetic to the points of view of the men, there has been displayed a readiness to embark on disputations, to issue abrupt ultimatums, or to halt work, which is without parallel. ’ In the case of the Auckland hold-up, based ostensibly on a dispute as to the suitability of a gangway leading to a certain ship, the observation was made a day or two ago by the Shipping and Stevedores’ Association, that this is not a question of the. safety of a ship s gangway, but solely one of the union executive fighting for the power to run the waterfront as they think fit, and therefore fighting the Government of the country, which is represented in this case by the Water front Control Commission. “Time and time again,” the association states, “there are threats i ■ of ceasing work if this or that dispute is not decided as the union thinks fit. But the time must come when to placate must, cease, and the recognized method of settlement become a fact and not a farce.” Here is an exceedingly blunt diagnosis of what one group believes to be the motive underlying the recent actions of waterside workers'. And can it be gainsaid ? In Wellington the Waterfront Control Commission itself has issued for the information of the public a factual review of the situation confronting it locally. Inside less than three months, according to this statement, waterside workers have “illegally stopped the whole work of the port ... on three occasions, and. despite prior‘warning by the Commission that their actions were illegal, have refused to answer correspondence or offer in any way an explanation of their conduct.” Here again is an indication that the speedy, reasonable settlement of points of dispute is not the sole purpose of those who direct watersiders’ policy. The very complete machinery for the weighing and settlement of points of difference has been used, according to the Waterfront Commission, “to settle ■well over a thousand disputes. . . .” “But,” the Commission adds, “it is quite apparent from what has transpired over the past two months that there is no intention by the union of utilizing constitutional machinery for the settlement of disputes.” Such being the case, the situation is one which cannot be permitted to drift further without imperilling the whole discipline, and therefore the efficiency, of the industry. The Commission system of waterfront control, created by the Labour Government, is, in effect, being defied by the watersiders’ organizations and faces a crisis which cannot —with any prospect of lasting satisfaction to the country, or of the country’s obligations—be evaded.