STRIKE TALK

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 122, 26 May 1941, Page 9

STRIKE TALK

WORK ON WHARVES

AUSTRALIAN THREAT

BAR TO MAXIMUM

EFFORT

(0.C.)

SYDNEY, May 24

Although both ship owners and maritime workers realise their importance to Australia's war efort and have every good intention of doing their bit, they cannot overcome their lonp-standing distrust and dislike for each other.

This was made clear during the week when the secretary of the Maritime Council of Trade Unions. Mr. J. Tudehope. appealed to employers, and to all members of transport and shipping unions, to co-operate to eliminate friction in their industry as vital to winning the war. Two days later a fourcolumn, full-length advertisement, authorised by the Australian ship own;rs. appeared in Sydney daily newspapers attacking Sydney waterside workers for hampering the war effort. The ship owners were in turn criticised by the Acting Prime Minister. Mr. Fadden, and the Attorney-General, Mr. Hughes, for aggravating Ihe position by use of the advertisement, and the Waterside Workers' Federation declared that the advertisement was "a threat to the peaceful working of the waterfront." LOSS OF WORKING HOURS. No reference was made in the advertisement to Mr. Tudehope's statement, but it could only be read as a disclaimer by the owners of responsibility for any friction. It stated that for four and a half months waterside workers had raised a "paltry objection" to methods of weekly payments. Previously, the advertisement explained, companies paid employees at 10 a.m. each Saturday for all work done by them up to 7 a.m. on that day. When the weekly deduction scheme for the payment oi Federal income tax was introduced in January, the companies found the old method impracticable and advised that time-sheets would be made up to 5 p.m. each Friday for payment at 10 a.m. on Saturday, the residue being added to the next week's pay. The unions refused to accept' this arrangement, the statement added and had refused to work after 5 p.m. on Fridays. This, it is claimed, has resulted in the loss of 30,000 man hours in the working of overseas ships. While the advertisement presented only one side of the case, it took a lot of gilt from Mr. Tudehope's patriotic ginger bread. "We do not need any further lessons," Mr. Tudehope had said, "to make us realise what a German victory would mean to the trades unions and workers. We are determined that Hitler must not and will not win. Our part in the struggle to defeat him lies in keeping the ships manned and moving as rapidly as they can be launched. To do this industrial stability is all important,' and in securing it the employers have as great a responsibility as the men. I appeal to them for their full co-operation in eliminating all causes of dispute and friction in industry, and I appeal also to all members of the transport unions to make full use of the round table in adjusting differences." WATERSIDERS ANNOYED. The unfortunate advertisement roused the ire of the waterside workers, who immediately talked strike, but were persuaded by their officials to defer a decision. A statement by the union's executive explained the men's case: "Since the war broke out, waterside workers have worked at any hour, day and night, Saturdays and Sundays included, under all kinds of conditions. The ship owners rejected the suggestion by the Arbitration Court that an advance of £2 should be added to the pay of each employee working after 5 p.m. on Fridays. They also refused to consider our alternative suggestion that the advance should be made only to men who obtained their first job of the week on Friday. "The dispute has been used to stop the wage rises promised by the Chief Judge months ago. The men resent the owners' implications against their loyalty, and in return question whether the Sydney employers really desire industrial peace."