WHARF DIFFERENCES EXECUTIVE AND DEFENCE COMMITTEE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 118, 20 May 1914, Page 2

WHARF DIFFERENCES EXECUTIVE AND DEFENCE COMMITTEE

THE UNION PRESIDENT'S VERSION. Mr. J. L. Radcliffe. president of thft Wharf Labourers' Union, replying to the elatementß made by Mt. W. G. Foster, chairman of tho Employers, Farmera, aiid Citizens' Defence Committee, regarding the question of preference on tho wharves, stages that it would bo interesting ( to know where Mt. Foster obtained liis information. The conversations which took place between him* eelf and Mr. Kennedy were confidential, and tho information Mr. Foster ob« tamed muet have been from Mr. Kennedy. Referring to the conference that took placa bpfcwoenj Mr. Foster, Mr. Jones (acting-frecretary of tho union), ami himself, Mr. Radcliffe states that Mr. B'oeter expressed surprise during the- proceedings at the condition of ai> fairs that provailed along the waterfront, o.nd admitted that the men who had left their homes to keep the pott open had been, shabbily treated. Mr. Foster also said that ho had every confidence in the Complaints Committee, but what he had learned had opened hi* eyee. A& the result of the confcretKve, Mr. Foster said he would call a Meeting of the Defence Committee. Mr. Radcliffe further states Chat he explained to Mf. Fofitev that the preference men had been expected to rig' gear and drive winches, which* was not fair to thorn. Complaints of four kinds had been -sent to tho Comp'lanitt. Committee, viz. :— lnsulting language to preference men, abusive Temarks to preference men. from some of tho firemen, incom* potency, and no work being available for the men who had mado the com* plaints. "A MARKED MAN." Any man who made a complaint, Mr. Radclifte adds, was a marked man', and no work waß offered him until hi» gney ance had been heard. A foreman had sometimes asked a preference man before the Complainte Committee how many ways he could shorten a sling, and ho had to admit that ho knew of only one way. And so he was judged to be incompetent. This question of ineompotency was a very sore point with these Mien, who were never told what tho verdict of the committee was. Further, the committee had refused to allow a member of the executive of the Wharf Labourers' Union to be present at tb& meetings of the Complaints Committee. THE EXECUTIVE'S SURPRISE. Touching on the recent conference between the executive of tho union and tho Defence Committee, Mr. Radcliffo states that when the members of the executive entered the room they were surprised to see several of the eniployprs and one of the Union Company's foremen present. He (Mr. Radcliffe) objected to the foreman's presence, bub was over-ruled by Mr. Foster, who stated that what was wanted was to I have a friendly talk over matters. The press was excluded, although the 'Defence Committee had a shorthand writer present _ and published its version ofproceedings. not one suggestion by the executive of the union being included in the report. The Defence Committee, «t the conference, offered representation to tho executive on a' special 1 committee to be appointed to deal with complaints, but ho (Mr. Radcliffe) said he would first require to consult his executive before accepting any such offer. A TERM OBJECTED TO. It was stated at the conference, Mr. Radcliffe continues, that the preference hands had, owing to the treatment they received, been reduced from 1500 to about 300 or 350, and those who had returned to the country were termed. " wasters " by a certain speaker. " I strongly objected to these remark./' says Mr. Radclilfe, "and called upon, the chairman to have the speaker vn. - draw the words. The chairman and a number of the employers grinned sarcastically, whilst 1 insisted that the words be withdrawn, and the chairman said they must not be taken literally."l Mr. Radcliffe 1 explains that why tho Wharf Labourers' Union disclaimed fur- | ther responsibility in the matter of assisting the preference men who could not get satisfaction was because the Defence Committee undertook by agreottient to give priority to those men who joined on or prior to Bth December, 1913, and if this compact had been fulfilled in the manner in which the Jftiaw, Savill, and Albion Company had cavried it out there would have been no cause for complaint. AN INACCURATE REGISTER. As to the allegation that the register containing the names of the priority men. being inaccurate, Mr. Radcliffe states that this register was compiled by the employers' secretary prior to the union taking ovoi 1 control. Mr. Radcliffe con» eludes :—'' With reference to the complaints and the manner in which they arc investigated I would like to mention a case that I am specially interested in. 1 brought under the not-ico of Mi\ Kennedy, manager of the Union Company, a charge of disgustingly filthy language which was used by one of his foremen to a number ot employees. I requested that an answer be sent to me concerning this particular case and this is what 1 received vol'bally i " That Mr. Kennedy prefered to believe his foreman's word before mine."'