WATERFRONT WORK

Greymouth Evening Star, 3 December 1946, Page 2

WATERFRONT WORK

DECISION ON GUARANTEED WAGES REPLY TO UNION COMMENT (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 2. The general secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Emloyers’ ciation, Captain M. T. Holm, in replying to the statement by Mr. 1. Hill, general secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Union, on the guaranteed wage decision, said:— “It is difficult to understand what Mr. Hill means when he states that th° employers have received a gift from the Waterfront Industry Commission. To put the matter in its true perspective, the position up to the date of the decision was that the waterside workers were guaranteed work to the value of £3/6/- a week, or failing work were paid that sum. The position under the recent decision, however, is that A grade waterside workers at all main poits and some secondary ports are to be guaranteed work in each four weekly period to the value of £25, or are to be paid that sum. B grade workers are to receive £2l under similar terms and conditions. Furthermore, the new provision giving man who are required to attend for engagement an attendance payment is a concession that the men will receive apart from any guaranteed wage. Men whose earnings exceed the guaranteed wage will still receive this attendance money. It is obvious, therefore, that the employers do not regard the decision of the commission in the nature of a gift. “Although the report of the Waterside’Control Commission for the year ended March 31 last shows the average hours of work for waterside workers at main and secondary ports as 41 hours, it must be pointed out that at some ports many of the men only work half of these hours, as by the system of spelling they only work hour about. Included in the average hours shown in the commission’s report are unexpired minima, that is payments made in excess of actual hours worked. Captain Holm also said that although the payment of £25 to A grade men and £2l to B grade men every four weeks was a minimum guarantee, men might and did average considerably more than this. The average weekly payment for waterside workers at. main and secondary ports for the year ended March 31, 1946, was £lO/7/6. By the recent decision a worker who earned, say, £5OO in 11 months, would have to be paid £25 in the twelfth month if there was no work for him in that month.

GUARANTEED MINIMUM OF £325 A YEAR

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 2. The majority of waterside workers under the new decision of the chairman of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Mr Justice Ongley, were being guaranteed a minimum income of £325 a year. It seemed to him that the chairman had given the workers more than their representatives had asked for, said Mr K. A. Belford, one of the employers’ representatives on (he commission, commenting on the protests of union leaders over the guaranteed wage. Mr Belford said the regulations under which the commission operated piovided that the decision of the chairman should be the decision of the commission. The decision of the commission on any matter should be pronounced by the chairman, and no separate pronouncement should be made by any other member of the commission with respect to any decision of the commission. While Mr H. Barnes, in making his statement as to the decision being “the most hypocritical document ever to be brought down in waterfront circles” had disregarded this section of the regulations, Mr Belford was not. prepared to do so, although to put it mildly he was surprised at the published remarks of Mr Barnes, Mr Napier, and Mr Hill. He had exr peeled criticism from the employers rather than the workers, although he thought the objections from the workers’ side came from certain individuals amongst the leaders, instead of from the rank and file of the workers.

Mr Belford added that at the present time the only guaranteed wage in the industry was £3/6/- a week .for the waterside workers at Auckland, Wellington, Lyttelton, and Dunedin, no guarantee being payable at other New Zealand ports. Waterside workers’ officials had asked for a daily guarantee of 14/~, Monday to Saturday. Their argument in support of the claim had to do with the justice of workers being guaranteed a reasonable livelihood from the industry, and also the unfairness of workers being required to attend at the place of engagement, usually from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., without compensation if they did not secure en-r gagement. The employers, on the other hand, while offering a guaranteed wage of £l4 for each four-weekly period, had contended that if the workers were to be guaranteed a fixed income, there should be a reduction in the high hourly rate which had been fixed on account of the casual nature of the work. The employers also sought several other alterations to the commission’s orders, which they contended would help towards increased efficiency in the industry and the elimination of certain abuses. It seemed to him that the chairman, in his decision, had actually given the workers more than their representatives had asked for, and the decision was, to say the least, a liberal one. «