WATERSIDE WORK

Evening Star, Issue 22414, 11 August 1936, Page 12

WATERSIDE WORK

44-HOUR WEEK DROP TO 40 REFUSED [Pek L'xited Press Associatiox.] WELLINGTON, August 11. By an Arbitration Court majority judgment to-day the watersiders will work a 44-hour week'. The court held that the average hours were much below 40, and an alteration would not lead to more employment, but merely to more payment for the same work. Mr Monteith, dissenting, appended a memorandum, in which he states that the court is bound to insert 40 hours as the maximum week if it is practical to carry, on an industry effectively, and he is of opinion that the employers did not prove it impra'oticable to carry on if the ordinary hours were reduced to 40. TEXT OF JUDGMENT (Received by Air Mail.) The judgment states: — The court is divided over this application, and the judgment that follows represents the view of the majority of the court: —All work done on the waterfront throughout New Zealand is casual work; that is to say, the watcrsiders are not in permanent employment. When a ship requires to be worked labour is picked up from the group of men offering for employment, and when the ship has completed discharging or loading, or the job is otherwise finished, the employment ceases, the men being paid according to the number of hours worked. The award fixes the ordinary hours as being from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and from 8 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. Work done within the limits of these hours is paid for at ordinary rates. Work done outside the limits of these hours—e.g., in the evenings or on Saturday afternoons or on Sundays, is paid for at overtime rates, irrespective of the number of hours that the individual watersider may have worked during that day or week. By reason of the intermittent nature of the work and of the large number of men following the industry; the average number of hours, exclusive of overtime, worked by watersiders throughout New Zealand is far below 40 per Week. The various returns put in show that the average time worked by watersiders at the main ports at ordinary rates is about 23 hours per week, and, at overtime rates, about 7 hours per week, a total, including ordinary and overtime, of, say, £0 hours per week. At the smaller ports the average number of hours worked per week would be still lower.

The two main objects sought to be achieved by the recent legislation relating to a 40-hour week are:—(a) To give employment to a greater number of workers; and (b) to give workers more leisure. Neither of these objects would be achieved by an interference with the normal working hours on the waterfront.

Indeed, the problem that for many years has exercised the mind of the', Court of Arbitration and of those interested in the work of watersiders has been not how to reduce their weekly working hours, but how to increase them. Moreover, the purpose of the present application is not to obtain a reduction of the weekly working hours of watersiders.

Its admitted and avowed purpose is to obtain not a reduction of working hours but a restriction of the daily hours during which work at ordinary rates of pay will be allowed to proceed. So that on a five-day 40-hour week being declared in this industry, overtime rates of pay could be claimed for all work done on Saturdays.

In our view, the statute is not intended merely to give extra wages while men continue to work the same hours as before. The work of watersiders forms an important unit in the transport system of the country. It is admitted that work on the waterfront must proceed on Saturdays. The loading and unloading of vessels cannot consistent with the efficient carrying on of the industry, be discontinued on Saturdays. The evidence shows that the smaller coastal -hipping companies of New Zealand are, by reason of the overland competition _ following the lengthening of our railways aud_ the improving of our highways, experiencing difficult times, and some of them are running at a loss. Any substantial increase in their costs may entail a cessation of some of the coastal services.

The present application is, however, not once in which the general question of rates of pay for watersiders arises or can be adequately dealt with. The sole question before ns is that of a reduction of the number of hours per week during which work at ordinary rates of pay can he carried on. In our opinion it is impracticable to carry on this industry efficiently on the reduced working week applied for. The application must, therefore, be refused. The dissenting opinion of Mr Monteith states inter alia:—

The court has. if possible, to endeavour to give the Saturday oil’. In some cases the court has given the workers the 40 hours under section 21, but has not seen its way to order that no work shall be done on Saturday. It is clear that, firstly, an order must be made under section 2] before an order under section 22 can be mad?. The employers stated it was impossible to carry on this industry without Saturday _ morning work. Be that as it may, it is my opinion that this industry certainly is one in which an order, fixing at not more than 40 hours the maximum weekly period, could have, been made. In this case the employers’ representatives and the workers’ representatives submitted evidence that the average weekly employment was much less than 40. The employers’ figures showed that tho employment averaged only 31.68 hours per week, ordinary and overtime. The workers presented data showing the average was less than Si hours per week. In view of this 1 am of opinion that the employers did not prove that it was impracticable to carry on this industry if the ordinary hours were reduced to 40 per week, as it was clearly shown that the industry has been carried on for a number of years by men being employed, on an average, fewer hours than 40 per week. Section 21. subsection 1. is very clear, using the word “ shall.” and. in view of the foregoing, I am strongly of the opinion that a 40-hour week should have been inserted in this award. The employers advanced two suggestions why an order should not be made; one that"the union was considering cancellation of registration, and the other

that the award had only a short time to run. Both, in my opinion, are irrelevant. The section states “ the court shall, by order made as soon as possible after the filing of the application,” etc., and any union having an award is clearly within its rights in making an application. The employers also placed the financial position of four small companies before tire court. One was in a satisfactory position; two others had been affected by new railways in recent years, and both had suffered by modern land transport. The court, under section 21, must not consider a small majority hut the industry. and no proof that the industry generally could not operate was forthcoming/ For these reasons. I dissent from the decision of the majority and am of opinion that an order should be made in favour of the applicant Waterside Workers' Federation,