THE WATERFRONT

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 113, 15 May 1934, Page 11

THE WATERFRONT

CONDITIONS OF WORK

UNIONISTS & NON-UNIONISTS

AVERAGE: EARNINGS

Conditions governing employment on the Wellington waterfront and the average wage a man can hope to earn were outlined by Mr. James Roberts, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Federation, when he was in the witness box in the Supreme Court today. Mr. Rdberts was called as a witness for the defence in a case in which proceedings were taken by a waterside worker against the Wellington Union because of the union's refusal to admit him as a member.

' "The average waterside worker from January to the end of April, that is, all members of the union;-would earn £2 10s and £2 15s a week," said Mr. Roberts, referring to tho work on the waterfront this year. The highest-paid men, he continued—soo out of 1000—worked on an average for twelve months, 24.3 hours per week per man. The remaining 500 worked on an average about 19.6 hours per week per man, for the year. During recent years January had been a slack month. January last year was very slack. February, March Apfil, and-May were the bus}" months at Wellington. . ; Replying to counsel, Mr. Roberts said that personal ability always had a connection with earnings, but the ability to get work depended a lot upon the amount of work the- company which employed a man regularly had in hand at any particular period. NO OPERATIVE AWARD. '.. Mr. Justice Reed: As I.understand it Mr. Roberts, the union at the present time is working under no award. "We have no award or industrial agreement of any kind your Honour" replied Mr. Roberts; He added that as a result of the amendment to the I.C. and A. Act the award was cancelled oh August IS, 1932. The parties made a gentlemen's agreement in December of that year for twelve months That expired on November 3 last, and there was no agreement of any kind in operation today, except an understanding by the'parties as to rates of pay and. conditions of employment. His Honour: Then from the union's point of view there is nothing to prevent any man being employed, whether he is a member of the union or not?— No, there is u 0 legal preference, but I think I should say, your Honour, that owing to the understanding which exists the employers do -give as a rule preference to our members. The employers and the waterside workers have an.understanding that the industry cannot carry any more men. If more men are employed there must be a material increase in wage rates to maintain these workers very casually. There is no legal preference. Wo cannot insist on it at all. THE NON-UNIONISTS. But of. course .it is perfectly well known to both the ..union and ers that the union wouldn't stand men being employed who are not members. —No. In fact, some employers have employed non-unioji members". You have the power to go on strike? Mr. Roberts said ho did not think it would pay to go on strike. He thought it, ,would> s be done- -by :-nQgotiationr,.£Th& difference,'^ he added, "is this: tfn all other industries a man obtains employment first and then joins the union! On the waterfront he joins the union first and the union is asked to .compel employers to employ him." ~..'.' Would it matter if you limited your members at the present time? —The agreement between us is for ,1450 men to cover all work on the waterfront, and employers hold that that -is too many. That is :the understanding we have. That was made twelve months ago. Mr. Roberts said it was contended that the union executive had the power to-admit-to membership or reject.; Mr. M. J. Gresson (counsel ; for the union): You do not suggest that there is a valid legal agreement that there should be 1450 men?—Oh, no. What we do:.-is ".to ask employers how many men they think are required to operate a port. Mr. W. P. Shorland (counsel for the plaintiff): You are aware that Mr. Justice Ostler has ruled that you cannot by agreement with the employers limit membership? . Mr. Roberts said he did not think Mr. Justice Ostler had actually ruled that. . .' THE GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT. Mr. Shorland: With' regard to this gentlemen's agreement you will admit that in the event of a breach or threatened breach of the gentlemen's ap-ree: ment your men are ordered to come out of a ship?— No. You deny that?— Yes. As a matter of fact, in the twenty years I have been secretary the men have never been ordered out. of ships. We have machinery to adjust matters of that kind. It is called the Local and National .Disputes Committee. His Honour: I read the newspapers, and I see that ships are held up at Lyttelton. ( There doesn't appear to be much settlement by agreement?— The ships at Lyttelton were held up because of the refusal of one employer I understood you to say that a disputes committee settlps all"these things. -^As a -rule the Disputes Committee settles all. these: things. Mr. Roberts added that in the twenty years lie had been secretary there had been less disputes than in any other part-of the world.