WATERSIDERS’ MEAL-HOURS

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 November 1944, Page 2

WATERSIDERS’ MEAL-HOURS

DISPUTE AT AUCKLAND.

AUCKLAND, November 5

A decision of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union not to work during meal hours, unless the ship on which they are engaged is expected to sail almost immediately after the hour, is causing concern to shipping companies, which claim that there have been some substantial delays. The Auckland Waterfront Controller (Mr. W. J. Cuthbert) admitted that the position was not satisfactory, but stated that it was hoped to arrive at a suitable solution, and that the chairman of the Waterfront Commission (Captain R. E. Price) would be visiting /Auckland shortly to deal with the matter. The order- of the Waterfront Commission, which is the award under which the watersiders work, states that the men shall work during meal hours if required to do so, and shall be paid at the rate of double ordinary time for a full hour, or for a full halfhour, if the job is finished in less than 30 minutes. When the meal hour or part of it is worked, the men shall be allowed 60 minutes for a meal from the time they cease work. According to this clause, provision is made for Saturday rates. The Auckland refusal to work the meal hour unless the ship is expected to sail shortly afterwards follows a similar action at Lyttelton and Wellington. “STRIKE” PROSECUTION

WELLINGTON, November 7. One watersider will be prosecuted on Monday as a test case in the charge against 402 of them for being I parties to a strike contrary to the regulations. Mr Cunningham, who appeared for the Inspector of Factories, said when, the cases were called this morning ■.hat there had been a decided difficulty in stating the facts for an originating summons in the Supreme Court, and that subject, to the Magistrate’s approval, it had been arranged to have a test case on Monday, when the whole facts would be elicited. He asked that all the cases be adjourned till then, and then all adjourned to a date at which the remit of the hearing in the Supreme Court shall have been determined, i Mr Ongley, for the defendants, 1 concurred, and the adjournment was made.