OVERTIME WORK ON THE WHARVES

Evening Post, Volume CI, Issue 51, 1 March 1921, Page 8

OVERTIME WORK ON THE WHARVES

PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT.

(Contributed by the Welfare I^eague.)

Some peopte are discussing the question of "overtime" on the wharves as if it was the same thing as overtime required to be worked by tradesmen who are in continnous employment. That is clearly a wTong view of the matter, because on many days when the tradesman is at work all day the waterside worker is not working at all. Overtime on the wharves is not necessarily hours worked in addition to the full day's work.

That tho watorsiders' federation and unions agreed of their own accord to the working of vessels (luring what are stipulated to bo overtime hoars is beyond dispute. On examination we find there are 12 different clauses in the existing waterside workers' agreement which relato to the working of overtime. This industrial agreement was made and signed by the representatives of the workers and the employers and continues in fore© until the 31st December, 1981. It was approved of by all the unions in the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation, If tho terms of such an agreement are not to be complied witli thei clearly the making of nny agreement must be held to be a farce, and ther3 is no hope for industrial peace whatsoever. THE WATJBBSIDBES' CASE. In refusing to work overtime, whatever the purpose of the men' is, they have rested their case on this provision in clause 19 (b) of the agreement:— 'In the easo of individual men who desire to knock off work at 5 p.m. when a vessel is working overtime, or men who desire to knock off work at 10 p.m. when a vessel is working special overtime, the foreman or clerk in charge shall notify the men before the last call ■for labour" for the day of his intention of working such vessel during overtime

hours, and the men shall similarly notify the foreman if they are coming back or otherwise."

Now, it is made clear by that clause that the men singly and as individuals have the Tight of refusing to work overtime, and if that were the only clause that governs the matter then all the members of the union, or federation, eonld by acting singly refuse- to work overtime without breaking the agreement. The working of overtime is recognised as voluntary on the p=»rt of the individual worker as far as that clause is concerned. THE EMPLOYERS' CASK. , The employers do not deny that under clause 19 (b) the men as individuals fcave a right to refuse to work overtime.. They contend, however, that the clause quoted nrusfc be :ead in conjunction with clauses 44 and 45. In clause 44 it is stated that "the federation and the respective unions undertake that no restrictions ■ relating to overtime work shall bo permitted to be made during th» currency of this agreement." The employers maintain that the refusals of many men at various ports to work overtime is a permitting of restrictions relating to overtime work to be made, and that until the federation end ths unions l.aye induced their members to cease these restrictions the undertaking is not being complied with. Clause 45 reads: "The essence of this agreement being that the work of the employer shall proceed m the oustomary manner and shall not on any account whatsoever be impeded." This clearly is t.ot being fulfilled whilst the restrictions relating to, overtime work obtain. The employers' case, L-hortly summarised, is that the numerous refusals to accept overtime work is reasonable evidence that the action is concerted and not individual, and further lhat the federation and unions whilst undertaking that no restrictions relating to overtime work shall be permitted ha»e freely permitted such restrictions as have seriously impeded tho work of the employers. THE FEDERATION'S CASE. We would gladly put this if the federation officers will say what it is. Messrs. L. Grlover, the president, and J. Roberts, Ihe secretary, have been approached several times and asked to state what their case is. They have declined so far to make any statement, so that practically the federation has simply sheltered behind the individual worker and allowed him' to fight tho matter and lose his employment. A SUMMING-UP. Renewing the whole matter as impartially as possible, we think it moat reasonable to conclude: — (a) That the watersiders have resented the employers' decision to refuse'to consider any increase on the Id per hour bonus which they offered. (b) That they have sought to force the employers by making an attack in the way of refusing to work overtime. (c) That the widespread and almost general refusals of the men make it most reaaonab'.e to infer that their actions vere concerted bnd not purely individual. (d) That whilst the industrial agreement allows for the refusal of overtime 'work to meet individual cases, it clearly prohibits any general "restrictions relating to overtime work." (c) That tho federation and unions, in not having called upon their members to work overtime- according to the "customary manner," have failed to carry out their undertakings under "the agreement. (f) That the efforts of the federation and union executives to make the dispute appear to be purely a contest between the employers and 'he individual workers is a futile and ridiculous pose, and is at the same time most unjust to the \w>rkero and the general public. (g) 'That the policy being earned out by the federation and unions, of exercising power without taking any responsibility, is a most dangerous proceeding. (h) That there appears to be only one way of establishing conditions of peace within this industry, and that is by reverting to a strict adherence to the ttims of the industrial agreement, in ipirit and letter. *