THE KEY INDUSTRY

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 72, 27 March 1922, Page 8

THE KEY INDUSTRY

WATERFRONT WORK

DISPUTE BEFORE ARBITRA-

TION COURT

EiMPLOYERS ATTACK UNION AND

FEDERATION

WAGES AND THE COST OF

LIVING

For the first time since 1908 the Arbitration Court is being called upon to decide the wages of men employed on the waterfront, and the conditions under which they shall work. Disputes have been filed at all the principal ports of the Dominion, and the hearing of the Wellington case opened to-day, and is likely to extend over a considerable period. The present proceedings were initiated by the employed, and subsequently the union filed counter proposals. Both claims and counter-claims were considei"ed by the Conciliation Commissioner, but most of the important points were left to the Court. There are very wide differences b*. tween what the employers propose and what the union desires. The union ■ asks for an increase of Id per hour in the rates of pay, which are now 2a 4d per hour ordinary time, ,3s 5d per hour overtime up to 10 p.m., a.nd 4s per hour for overtime from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The wages proposed by the emploj'ers are.ls 7d per hour ordinary time, and 2s 4^d per hour overtime. The union also seeks special rates for special work, and for work on speciel cargoes. The claims in this connection have already been published. The employers desire to abolish stopwork meetings, and suggest special provisions again«t go-slow tactics. Stopwork funerals are also attacked. Other important provisions were discussed and explained as the hearing of the case proceed«d. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer, presided with Mr. W. Scott, assessor for the employers, and Mr. M. J. Reardon, assessor for the employees. . ' Mr. W. 6. Smith appeared for the employers, and Captain J. Hale Monro for the Wellington Harbour Board. Mr. J. Roberts appeared for the employees generally, and Mr. J. Bruce for the Wellington Waterside Workers' Union. COMMENT IN THE PRESS. Before opening his case formally Mr. W. J. Smith said it was his duty to refer to a letter which appeared'in the Evening Post of Thursday last, written by Mr. J. Laurenson, assistant secretary oj the Waterside Workers' Union, traversing the'case before the Court at considerable length, apparently with the intention of prejudicing the hearing. "My reason for mentioning this," said Mr. Smith "is that, if I do not, the other side will say we accept the statements as correct, that we do not challenge; them. We do challenge them. Many of them are incorrect and some of them are grotesque." Mr. Smith referred to the criticism of the Union Company's activities during the war period, and the employment of its veessls on war service by the Government— matter evidently introduced, he said, with the object of showing, that the; company could pay any rates claimed. He did not propose to go into that matter beyond referring the Court to the report of the Royal Commission, which went into the whole question in 1918. If necessary, he would put in the report. Mr. Smith then read the concluding paragraph of the report which completely exonerated the company from any such charges. This, he said, spoke for itself and rendered lengthy comment luperfluous. The company had placed its books before the Commission without hesitation, and without reservation. It was' clear the company had fully recognised its duty to the Dominion, and the Commission expressed its appreciation of the company's services which had very much lightened a heavy task. Mr. J. Roberts, on behalf of the, union, said in reference to Mr. Smith's statement, that two statements_ had previously appeared in the Evening Post, one by Mr, G. Mitchell and the other by Mr. J. G. -Harkness, chairman of the "Wellington Harbour Board, since the case had been before the Conciliation Council. "We felt in duty bound," ,said Mr. Roberts warmly, "to reply. I think the two first letters appearing in the press were calculated to prejudice the case. In order that the facts might be shown on the other side the other letter was.written." Mr. Smith seemed to have forgotten to tell the Court of the other letters which had appeared, continued Mr. Roberts. The Lyttelton Times (Christchurch) had also published articles on the same dispute; and generally the papers in New Zealand had been printing matter for weeks, and this wai the only letter the workers had written. Mr. M. J. Reardon, assessor on the Bench for the employees, said the editors did not apparently know the law. The editors did not know an editor* duty. Mr. Smith: "The editor must speak for himself. I am not in a position to speak for him." Mr. Roberts asked the Court to make a pronouncement in regard to the publication in the press of matter concerning a dispute, when a dispute was in progress, and the matter was in dispute. He 'would like the judgment of the Court on this question. THE PRESIDENT'S REMARKS. After a brief consultation with his colleagues, his Honour Mr. Justice Frazer said that at the present stage the^ Court did not want to express any opinion on the motives which might have influenced Mr. Laurenson in correspondence in the press on the question of waterside work. The matter might in its origin have cropped up quite innocently, and the statements made without any intention of influencing the Court in any way. The case was now before' the Court. It was a matter of quite general knowledge that it was for the Court to deal with matters, and to take charge of all considerations raised by' the parties. The law as to comment on matters that were sub judice was applicable in the Arbitration Court in any dispute, just as it applied to any action in any other Court. No doubt in matters of public and general iriterest the rule as to comment on matters sub judice might be lost sight of. As to the matters now brought forward, the Court was of opinion it was not necessary to take steps to punish anybody for anything that had been done. Now that the matter had been brought- forward, everybody concerned'would be careful to see that no public comment was made on any matters before the Court. His Honour said tbe Court knew it was difficult to draw the line sometimes when the matter was of public and general in-' terest as to what might be discussed and what might not bn discussed. They hoped that the good sense of the friends of both partioa would be Buflicicnt to

enable them to agree on a danger-line, and to confine comment .to matters quite properly the subject of comment apart from the present dispute. He ' hoped it would not be necessary to refer to the matter again. The Court, at the same time did not think that in the present instance any of the correspondents'had any intention of deliberately prejudicing the minds of the Court or of influencing the Court at all. "As a matter of fact," said his Honour, "I 'just skimmed through^ the letters as one'skims through the ordinary correspondence in the newspapers." METHOD OF PROCEDURE. Mr. Roberts raised the question as to whether it was necessary, in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties on procedure last week, to continue holding Conciliation Councils in the different parts of New Zealand. He could not see why Conciliation Councils were now wanted at all. Mr. Smith agreed on behalf of the employers. His Honour said he was glad to know both sides were at one in the matter. It did seem a needless expense to proceed with Conciliation Councils when the procednre was now for a Dominion award. It would be a more or less waste of public money to proceed with the Conciliation Councils, but the leeal position was such that if the Conciliation Commissioner called a council, and nobody appeared, he would simply strike out the dispute. There was no reason why the Commissioner!should not call a.council, and, if some representatives of the employers attended and stated that the whole matter 1 was before the Court, it would dispose of the matter. One gathering in each district This procedure was agreed upon. . CASE OPENED FOR THE EMPLOYERS In opening the case for the employers. Mr. W. G. Smith described the dispute as a very important one. Waterside work, be said, was regarded as a key industry, the basic rate of pay for which 'materially affected the rates in other industries. As a further indica? tion of its importance, Mr. Smith mentioned that the amount paid in New Zealand for waterside labour was approximately £1,200,000 per annum. Mr. Smith followed with a brief statement in relation to the various agreements which had Been made between the various employers and watersiders' unions since the dispute was before the Court in 1908. Prior to the end of December, 1911, the waterside employees had been-working under separate awards or industrial agreements, and there had been little or no friction. The basic wage at the main ports was at that time:—ls 3d per hour ordinary time (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and 2s'per hour from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Mr. Smith recalled the first negotiations with the defunct Federation of Labour, the 1913 strike, and subsequent negotiations with the Waterside Workers' Federation. ONEROUS WORKING CONDITIONS. ■ After quoting the present rates of i wages, Mr. Smith said. "It will thus' be seen that the increase in the basic wage i since the commencement of the war in '. 1914 is lid per liour for ordinary time, • or 64.7 per cent. ; Is 3d per hour on < overtime to 10 p.m., or 57.7 per cent.; i Is 9d per hour ou overtime from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., or 77.7 per cent. The,actual ■ increase in the earnings of the men is, : however, much greater than the per- i centage mentioned, as the onerous work- i ing conditions, which the employers i were forced to grant during the war period if they were to keep the ships going in the interests" of the country have greatly increased the men's earn- ' ings, as so many payments have to be ' made for which no. return is actually given in the shape of work. This- is s easily seen from the records of the central pay office at Wellington, which ' show that up to the end of its last ] financial year in August last, the increase in the earnings of the men as j compared with pre-war in July, 1914, j has been 71 per cent." Mr. Smith quoted the following extract from the an- , nual report of the Labour Department ', for. 1921:—"During the year ended 4th ' August, 1920, 968 waterside workers in Wellington earned an average of 2s 6|d : per hour (or £4 17s lOd per week) for ; an average of 38.8 hours per week; dur- 5 ing the year ended 3rd August, 1921, , an average of 1423 men earned an avy- - age of £4 19s 8d per week." :: SKILLED OR UNSKILLED. ; As the cost of -living (three food groups) had ■ fallen about 31 per cent. ' from its highest point, it ■ was obvious, stated Mr. Smith, that on that .ground alone the basic wage should now be substantially reduced,, and the employers proposed the unskilled workers' rate (Is 7d plus bonus of 3|d), though even on the basis of the cost of living figures ■ that rate was really too high at the present time. As to waterside labour being unskilled, he did not think there could be any real dispute, but evidence would be called on the subject. Mr. Justice Higgins, in the Australian waterside workers' case, had laid it down that wharf labourers clearly belonged- to the category of unskilled labourers. That • judgment had practical support in New Zealand, where, during the 1913 strike, the men who came from the country to work the ships had no experience or knowledge of waterside work, but nevertheless carried it on very successfully and maintained an excellent outpujt. , There was no "go-slow" as far as those loyalists were concerned. Another proof ; was that every Tom, Dick, or Harry who was unemployed, owing to slackness in his own trade, went down to the wharf : for, temporary employment, and in most ; cases got on very well with the work. i THE FIXING OF WAGES. [ " I do not propose to say much in regard to the cost of living," continued Mr. Smith, " as the Court has much ; better means of ascertaining the real ; figures than anyone who, like myself, has to depend entirely upon the publish- ■ ed figures of the Government Statistician. The other side will, no doubt, argue that the figures should not be taken on the three food groups alone, but that rent, fuel; and lighting should be included. They, however, overlook the fact that_ the inclusion of these items might quite possibly reduce instead of increase the percentage increase in the cost of living, as such comparatively small proportions of the income are spent on these items compared with the proportion spent on food. I would, however, like to sa.y something in reference to the inadvisability, especially in time of depression like the present, of fixing wages solely on the basis of the cost of living. We. have a very apposite example of this in the present state of affairs in Australia, where the Court has followed the cost-of-living rule very closely, with the result that many industries have-been compelled to close down, and many thousands of workers have been thrown out of employment in. consequence. In fact, the position has become so acute that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth summoned a general conference of employers and workers, with a view to arranging such n reduction in wages, by mutual agreement if possible, as will enable the many industries now closed to restart. This conference, has. unfortunately, proved abortive, as the proposals put forward and pressed by ■the workers were for the entire socialisation of industry, a proposition which the employers were, of course, not prepared to discuss. The position is almost, if nnt quite, as bad in New Zealand, where there is a, large: number of unemployed, and muny employers are working

at a loss, and are unable to give their shareholders any return for their capital. The Union Company, for the first time in thirty years, has been obliged to pass its dividend. SHIPPING COMPANIES LOSING MONEY. After suggesting that the published figures in regard to the cost of living, which were, and must necessarily be, based, on a fixed regimen, weTe, in fact, too high, Mr. Smith reiterated that, apart, altogether from that, the cost of living was not a proper standard to follow in fixing wages at a time of depression. Wages were a' share in the prosperity of an industry, and they would be high,or low, in accordance with the success or failure of that. industry. Beyond that, it was not really practicable to go, and it was high time that the fixing of wages by the higher mathematics should cease, and that it should be clearly understood that there was. no bottomless purse out of which the employers could, pay wages which tha financial state of the industry would not allow. In a time of prosperity and profits wages rose by reason of the law of supply or demand. Labour was usually scarce in such times, and that scarcity, together with the fact that prosperity had provided the wherewithal to pay an increased wage caused, wages .to rise. But, when prosperity and- profits gave \yay to depression or loss, wages must fall as the wherewithal to pay high wages was absent. So faT as tho shipping industry was concerned, most shipping companies were now running at a. loss, and unless income and expenditure could at least be balanced by a reduction in working costs, then more,—and still more—ships must be laid up with a resulting large increase in unemployment. EFFECT OF OVERSEA COMPETITION. Figures would be . supplied for the Court's confidential information showing the results of, the trading of the various ships. Freights had fallen all round, and in some trades to a mere fraction of what they were a couple of years ago, and were likely to fall still further owing to the keen competition of American and Canadian Government ships, and also Japanese and other tonnage, whose working costs had been ruthlessly reduced to-a point much below those of New Zealand ships. "There is a general idea,", said Mr. Smith, "that the New Zealand shipping employers have a big measure of protection, but this is not so. There is certainly some measure of protection in the New, Zealand coastal trade, owing to the operation of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, but the great bulk of the trade of the Union Company, which" employs 55 per cent, of the waterside labour, is now oversea, the proportion being 75 per cent. The company has to compete in the world market against large numbers of more cheaply run ships of all nationalities, which are hungrily seeking employment wherever any is to be found. That employers cannot continue indefinitely to run their business at a loss is obvious, and this position is gradually being realised by the workers themselves, as only a few weeks, ago the Yorke Peninsula Miners' Association in South Australia made an offer to the directors of the Moonta Copper Mining Company to accept a reduction of 18 per cent, in wages so as to enable operations to be continued instead of. the mines being closed down. But even this did not save the position." Mr. Smith quoted other instances where the workers had accepted a reduction in wages. "BY FORCE MAJEUBE." In dealing with the claim of-the employers for a reduction in wages and some modifications in the Working conditions, Mr. Smith urgad'the court to give serious consideration to the conditions under which the 1916 and subsequent agreements -were made with, the Waterside y Workers'.Federation. , "The fact that the demands were made, during tha currency of the war and when, owing to the depredations of the German submarines, every ship that could float was urgently wanted, and any stoppage of shipping would have been not only disastrous to New Zealand but to the whole of the Empire^ which was. largely depending on Australasia for its food supplies, and • when moreover, an acute shortage of labour existed, was the only reason why such excessively high rates of wages and onerous conditions as compared with those fixed for. similar lahour in other industries, were granted by the employers., -In 1916, the court's basic wage for ■.unskilled' labour was Is 3d per hour, as compared with Is 8d per'hour, granted in that year to the Waterside Workers. In short, the high rates of pay and onerous conditions were obtained from the employers by 'force majeurc' and under duress, arid not because the latter considered the rates on the working conditions reasonable, or such ■ that could, or would, have been granted under normal conditions. SHIPPING COSTS MUST COME DOWN. .' Mr. Smith said that the shipping industry was one in which the interest* of the general public, and particularly of the primary producers, must be considered by the Court to a ereater extent, probably, than in any other industry for which the Court fixed the rates of ■wages and conditions of employment. Th« position of the primary producers had no, doubt been fully laid before the Court in other cases. The seriousness of . the situation which had arisen owing to the world-wide slump in the prices of our ■ primary products was so widely known that any further comment at that juncture was unnecessary. It would, how- : ever, be apparent that anything that ' could be done in the direction of reduci ing the charges on the primary products 'should be effected'in the interests of the ; community as a whole. That could not be done unless the working costs of ships, which were now about two and athird times higher than, before the war, were reduced. One of the principal items of the extra cost was labouT in one form or a.nother. REDUCTION IN EFFICIENCY. There was another very important aspect of the position, which must receive consideration, and that was the reduction in the efficiency of the work performed now as compared with the prewar period. Although the earnings of the men had increased between 1914 and 1921 by 71 per cent., it was a fact, and evidence would be submitted to prove it, that the actual cost of lahour in the handling of cargo in Wellington had increased on the average by 107.65 per cent, for general cargo and 133.35 per cent, for coal. . The only inference which could be drawn from that was that the difference was due to lack of efficiency. It was not suggested that the men had been idle to the fu"ll extent indicated, hut it was contended that what with a, certain tendency k>( take things easy, coupled with the hampering and restricting conditions imposed by the unions since 1911, a loss of efficiency as stated had in' fact resulted. There was no question but that the go-slow policy had been deliberately put into operation on various occasions, notably in 1919 and 1920, when it was adopted, not because there was any quarrel with the waterside employees, but with .the object (the employers had ovary reason to believe) of assisting the coal miners to compel the coal mine proprietors to granl. their demands, though how the delaying of shipping would bring about that result Mr. Smith was' at a loss to understand. Its only effect was to injure the public ut large by -still further | limiting their already limited supplies of colil and other uuutidstiry supplies, ;uid |

also to further increase the coat of living, as if the ships were bo delay:) Ijinf, they could only do two voyngM n'flcrrj ).)i«j/ previously did throe, working coct» V/«i'«s thereby largely incraiifioil, and frfliglils had oi necessity to be rained, 1913-14 AND TO-DAY. Speaking more directly to f,lie proti'mtiH made by the employers, Mr. riwitli «>i</ that generally upcuking tin.' c'mti"iiitrits suggested, but not the rales oi v/uff^a, were on the lines of ihw.i: ninlni(lU;il ill thft agreement dated WfillirixLon, Hliii December, 1913, and already u-.t erred \'i an the 1914 agreement, font a. number of conditions to the workers' advftnff«(s which hud been since agree'! Ui v,':tii allowed to remain. The <:zi»\'m% OinAStions which had been dftl«tcd v/t>r» tWfi which, as bait already bw;n pcmt-wl nut, had been exacted from tli« errtploycf* under duress during the; nbmirtilii) time* of the war period, It would bo found that the condition!! proposed v/r,tc. hi every way reasonable, and that Iherr. was nothing in them which wrtiUl h>> ehi'l to be unfair or tinjuvl In tho v/nrlteta. So far as wagon wwc concerned, it would be well to mention that all r<:fererifift to repair work had been <iiu'uli:(\, .-<». such work was not properly included in a waterside worker*' agreement, >'>« it came within the Kcope of tli«s wietaJ-Wfirkern 1 assistants and gnncral labourerc' ;i,'.v;i.rd«, or at any late (should be the subject of a special award concerning wages. The reduction which Hie employern were at present asking for on an ordinary day's work from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. wa« 19.84 per cent., or about the »arne reduction as that made by the Court in connection with the shearers' dispute, or, taking the modifications made in the working conditions into account, the total reduction would not exceed 23 per cent. Mr. Smith suggested that if the Court confined its consideration to the 1913-14 agreement and to the alterAions asked for by the employers, the bent interests of the industry and the country as a whole would be served. WET-WEATHER CLAUSE ABUSED. Mr. Smith proceeded to deal in detail with the proposals and counter-claims. He protested strongly against the union's desire to restrict the employers in,many matters, and made a plea that the employers should be permitted to use their discretion, in such matters as the weight or load on a sling and the size of a gang. He stated that the wetweather clause, included in the union's counter-proposals, was introduced for the first time in 1917, and had been abused by the members of the union in a most flagrant and unblushing manner. A few drops of rain, and a ballot would be taken and the men would vote not to work. Tile men would either have to be kept standing by on pay, or paid for the minimum period, in which case the men would have to be re-engaged at the next labour call. One ship had paid as much as £145 in one day under the clause in return for which not a single stroke of work had been done.: by the watersiders. PREFERENCE TO UNIONISTS. The employers asked the Court to substitute a "no discrimination", clause for .the present preference clause,'one reason being that the preference clause had been greatly abused by the waterside unions, especially of late years. At the present time the Wellington Union demanded payment in advance of a sum of 50s before a man was allowed to join the union, apparently made up of 5s entrance fee, 25s for a year's subscription in advance, and 20s levy. ,-. The demand for the levy was clearly improper undet' the terms of the existing preference clause, as a levy could not, in the ordinary acceptance of the term, be classed as a contribution, In any, event, seeing that it was struck long - after the present agreement was signed, the demand for payment of the levy before admission was a clear breach of the agreement (clause 43). Further,, the union had not abided loyally by the I. C. and A. Act. The union had not shown that it relied on constitutional methods for the settlement of disputes. Preference, if given at all in the future, was a prize which unions should be given -to . understand in unmistakeable terms could not be lightly gained. Mr. Smith urged th« Court to deprive the union of preference. - The moderate men only belonged to the union because under the preference clause they had to. They did net attend meetings, even stop-work ones. The control of the union thus- passed into the hands of men of, to put it mildly, very advanced views, who ran the union for the purpose of advancing their revolutionary theories, made levies upon members, which they knew to b» illegal, and enforced payments by means of threats of exclusion from work, as~ had happened nuite recently «n connection with the Wellington Union. The secretary of the union notified the 'employers that three or four hundred men were to be debarred from employment because they had not paid the £1 levy. STOP-WORK MEETINGS AND — . FUNERALS. On another important phase of the dispute Mr. Smith stated: " The holding of stop-work meetings has occasioned serions loss, and it is high time the practice was put an end to. There is no provision in the current agreement, for stop-work meetings, but they have had to be recognised to some extent, as the employers were bluntly told that unless agreed to the men would hold them all the same. The cost of these stop-work meetings is very great. The Wellington carting firms alone lose over £250 per month owing to their men and their plant having to stand idle on the wharf while the meeting is in progress. The staffs in the merchants' stores have also to stand idle, to a considerable: extent owing to the carts not being able to retilrn for fresh loads. Then there is the value, which is very great, if the loss of time to all the shipi jin port and of the standing charges of the Harbour Board. The Court vs respectively urged to deal drastically with this matter and with the "go-slow" policy, overtime strikes, and other attempts to restrict output, and to prohibit such pracicee under heavy penalties. When ships have been held up by workers in the past on some excuse more or less frivolous and in direct defiance of their agreement, tlio employers , found that the only course' open to them, if they were not to be left helpless, was to refuse to engage any other labour until the boycotted ship was manned. The union officials always allege that this action, although directly caused by a breach of agreement on the part of members of the union, is a lockout. This contention is really absurd under the circumstances, but the employers have inserted a paragraph in their proposed clause which will make the position clear. The employers strongly object to the practice which has grown up of stopping work for a day or half-a-day for inquests or funerals where the- death of a member of the union has been caused by accident. While they entirely sympathise with tlie desire of the men to show respect to a deceased comrade, fhe employers consider that this can best be' done by deputing a reasonable number of men to attend, instead of stopping the whole work of the port. . . . As a matter of fact, it is noticed that the men do not actually attend the funerals, but merely march in a body for » short distance from the wharf, and then break off, and go home. TERM OF AWARD. In view of the uncertain' outlook of trade, the employers ask lor - a short-

ilnUxl awiini v. on,i ,mh.i, ...j.-.-. i.^ niiitin tiiikfui for it to expire on 31st fii-wtnin r, V&'i, " the object of this beii,;j" ( ft*,//! Mr. Kmith. "to have it expire iti t-hif Ht'uUtitt of the busy season, so that f.!i<-*/ iitity \«: in a position to 'put the suifv-ti i,i! crnpjojftfa to agree to any new <lst/;«M.'ls lh(!,y' may make."

(Prorwiing.)