WHARF STOPPAGES

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 28, 3 February 1938, Page 10

WHARF STOPPAGES

THE EMPLOYERS' CASE

REPLY TO MR. JOHNSON

RIGHTS UNDER AWARD

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Like the Wellington watersiders, the Wellington shipping employers are averse to taking part in newspaper controversies, but Mr. J. O. Johnson's attempt to shift the blame for the trouble on the Port Campbell, and failures of his men to discharge the fruit from the Rangatira, on to the employers is so cleverly made that, to the, unthinking, it would appear as if the employer had gone out of his way to hold up the work on the Port Campbell and not given the men on the Rangatira an opportunity to discharge the fruit. It is pleasing to have his admission that the order was given 'o work the tea hour at No. 1 hatch of .the Port Campbell. He then states some of the men declined to work, also that some of the men in the gang-had-told the employer earlier in the day they would be unable to work. The facts are that early in the !day, before the question of working the tea hour or overtime had been raised, two men asked to be excused from. working the tea hour. Under Clause 47 of the award individual workers may ask to be relieved from working overtime, and the requests are always granted when made. But Clause 19 of the award, which is mandatory, provides that men shall work meal hours when required. The order to work the tea hour was given at 4.43 p.m. to the men in.No. 1 hatch, and the only answer given was a refusal, except for two men in the hold, who agreed to work the meal hour. . . The employer then discharged the men—this is what any employer would do in the case of his employees refusing to obey a just and proper order, and that is not mistake number one. ' Mr. Johnson then says no attempt was made to obtain substitutes, but he is well aware that in previous cases of gangs refusing to work the meal hour, other gangs on the ship have invariably refused '■ to take the place of the gang that declined to work. After the men at No. 1 hatch came ashore the official walking delegate of the union met and addressed the men, and it is believed ,that he pointed out to the men they, should work the meal hour when ordered to do so, but they again refused. *~ Put in a few words.the men at No. 1 were given. a just and proper order at the correct time provided by .the award to work the tea hour—they refused to obey these orders and were discharged. This is the statement of fact concerning the trouble at No. 1 hatch. ■ . ■ The employer. is required by the award to employ members of the union in preference to non-menibers as long as there . are •• members >of the' union available and' ready' and willing to undertake the, .work.'..

Transfers - are . not* allowed after 5 p.m. and as no labour, either Union or non-union'; .was ■ available, '"'■ the" crew were engaged' to. work No. I ; hatch.' This procedure has been adopted before, and union men in other hatches continued working, notwithstanding Mr. Johnson's: talk of psychology of working men, and of the employer not kiadwing his job.: >.. ■ . : ..•' The gangs at Nos. 2, 3, and 4-hatches returned to work at 6 p.m. as1 ordered; but when they discovered, the crew working No. .1, the job delegate, on behalf of the men,•: informed the employer that they would cease work unless. the, crew- were discharged. The employer could not .agree to the men's demand and as they.ceased work and definitely tefused to resume, they were discharged. , Mrv Johnson-goes on to say the officers of the union are expected to carry out the award and to see that the work is carried on in accordance with its terms, but the officers of the union were faced with, an impossible task as they were not consulted before the men ,were sacked. , The, writer has no hesitation in saying that this statement is not in accord with the facts. The walking delegate, who is ' the recognised officer of. the union, in regard to the observance^ of. the award, was at the Port CampDell as previously stated. He was also present at a meeting of the No. 1 men at Gannaway's office at' 5.10 p.m., when they, again refused to work the tea hour, and after the men had left Mr. McLeod pointed out that there might be trouble at 6 p.m. with the. other gangs,.,and suggested, in the presence of the. writer, that he should again visit the ship at 6 pjn., but this request was declined. The above shows that the union officials were consulted and given the opportunity to intervene if they so desired. What. Mr.: Johnson says v in regard to the bureau, its board of control, and the penalties provided by the I.C. and A. Act is irrelevant in respect to the commencement of the dispute on' the evening of January 25, and I am not prepared to;make' any- further statement on this aspect of the case pending the decision of the employers on what . further steps they , propose to

take to preserve their rights under the award. There is no excuse for the deliberate refusal of the men to obey instructions given them by the employer in full accordance with the terms of the award. The local Disputes Committee clause states:—"The essence of this award being that the work of the. employer shall always proceed as if ■no -dispute had arisen, it is provided that \i any dispute or difference shall arise between the parties bound by this award or any of them, as to any matter whatever arising out of or connected therewith, .every such .dispute or difference as the same shall arise, shall be referred to a committee composed of three representatives of the union at the port concerned and three representatives of the employers, for their decision." - In both cases on the Port Campbell the men refused to allow the work of the employer to. proceed, thus denying the right of the local disputes committee to function and breaking their contract with the employer. Mr. Johnson's statement that chilled meat was not worked at No; 1 hatch has already been dealt with. As regards the RangatirS's fruit, Mr. Johnson asks: "Why did not the employers approach the officers of the union and ask for their assistance in getting the fruit discharged? The officers of the-union were not told anything about the fruit until Thursday, the day after the picnic, when the Port Campbell case was under. discussion." The ship's foreman states that he told the delegate for the steamer's men about 8 a.m. on the Monday that there was fruit to land, and the delegate replied that the men had decided it was too wet to work. The delegate admits this, and referred the question to the men alongside the steamer, but they again declined to work, and returned to the waiting room. I might mention that a delegate is appointed by the men themselves at each steamer —one for the ship's men and one for the Harbour Board men —and the foreman deals with this delegat only. Prior to the introduction of the bureau system,, there was no difficulty in getting the men to discharge mails, luggage, passenger:' cars, and perishable cargo in any weather. Regarding the officers of the union being told nothing until Thursday, Mr. Johnson presumably does not remember the Union Company's wharf superintendent ringing him personally on th'e Tuesday afternoon, and saying that he proposed to discharge the fruit on Wednesday, picnic day, with the permanent men, seeing that no union labour would be available, and Mr. Johnson assented to this course. It may not be generally known.that labour was paid out on the Monday for only the three' following vessels, yet not a tap of work was done by the union labour: — \ £ s. d. Awatea 104 17 0 Rangatira 69 7 0 Tamahine "29 0 0 Total £203 ,4- 0 The amount paid out on account of other ships must, aggregate many, hundreds of pounds. —I am, etc., W.; H.G.BENNETT, . Manager, Wellington; Co-operative Waterside Labour Employment • Association. ,