WATERSIDE PROBLEMS

Evening Star, Issue 19855, 2 May 1928, Page 13

WATERSIDE PROBLEMS

THE COURT DETERMINES DISPUTED POINTS (Ter United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 1. The Arbitration Court has decided, as below, a number oi' questions stated for its opinion by the joint secretaries of the National Disputes Committee set up under the waterside workers’ award, dated December 1, 1924, Question 1. as to whether the crane gang who started work on the s.s. Atholl at Wellington at 1 p.m. on Tuesday, October 11. 1927, and ceased work for the day at 4.30 p.m., and wore ordered back at 8 a.m. on Wednesday, and worked until 4.30 pm. on that day. are entitled to be paid lor six hours on Tuesday, October 11, and until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, October 12. The Atholl commenced discharging with other gangs on Monday, October 10. Answer, in the opinion of the court the men employed on the crane gang wore entitled to a minimum of six hours’ pay for the day. Question 2, as to whether the men employed on the s.s. Opibi on Monday, December 11. 1927, loading general cargo in which was included over 100 drums of crude fuel oil, are entitled to be paid oil rates from the time the crude oil tirst came into the hold until the finish of the loading. The men were paid one-hour at oil rates, the time taken to load the oil. Answer: No provision is made in the award for a special rate for waterside workers handling general cargo in a hold in which crude oil is stored.

Question 3, as to whether two men employed on the wharf at Miramar by 0. Wadley at the s.s. Waipiata, and who, when the ship finished at 2.Ki p.m. on Saturday, January 1, 3928, were discharged at that time and paid up to 3 p.m., this pay to include tho travelling time allowed by clause 14 (b) of the award, are entitled to be paid the minimum provided by clause 16, and the travelling time in addition. Answer: The court lias on at least two former occasions (‘Book of Awards,’ volume xxiv., 126, and volume xxv., 296) held that tho two hours’ minimum payment includes payment for travelling time. It is immaterial whether tho travelling time is the time actually occupied in travelling or a fixed time allowance for the journey. in my opinion this case is quite different from the Gisborne case recorded in volume xxiv.. page 126,” states Mr A. L. Monteith, in" dissenting from tho opinion of a majority of the court on question 2. I cannot agree that an allowance made to men travelling outside the employment can, without any provision in the" award, reduce tho ordered down minimum of two hours. No provision exist* in this award to alter or reduce this ordered down minimum in any manner whatsoever.”