Mountpark Dispute— Verdict For Watersiders On First Phase: Against Them On Second

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 August 1948, Page 5

Mountpark Dispute— Verdict For Watersiders On First Phase: Against Them On Second

(P.A.) AUCKLAND, This Day. The Mouhtpark dispute finding was announced today by the chairman of the tribunal, the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O’Leary. The tribunal found for the watersiders on the first phase, dating from February 20, and against them on the second phase, dating from May 2°. . In respect to the first phase, the tribunal found the Mountpark hatches were not safe to remove by hand on February 20 and subsequent days, and the Union Steam Ship Company was not justified in dismissing the men; also that the men were not properly placed on penalty on the days named. His Honor awarded the men penalised a total of £1297 7s 6d. No penalties were awarded in respect to the second phase of the dispute. In relation to the Broompark dispute, his Honor found the dismissal of the watersiders was justified.

I-Is Honor found that the payment of £935 12s lOd should be made to men penalised in respect, of Friday, February 2, Monday, February 23 and two subsequent days. The tribunal found that the decision of the Waterfront Industry Commission on February 25 was pot a proper one and the men were entitled to refuse resumption of work on the Mountpark on February 26, 27 and 28. The payment of £363 14s should be made to men penalised on February 26 and 27.' February 28 was a Saturday and a non-working day.

May 20 Dispute

The tribunal found the men were not entitled to refuse to move the Mountpark hatches on May 20 without mechanical assistance and the Union Company was justified in dismissing the men on the days subsequent to May 20. The men were properly placed on penalty, on those subsequent days. The Waterside Industry Commission was justified in deciding on June 24 that the Mountpark be made a preference ship. Sir Humphrey O’Leary found that in the February phase ol' the dispute al the hatches were unsafe to handle manfully—not merely on account of weight but of defects which made them dangerous. It was not unreasonable that the men should refuse to work them without “hooks.” If the weight had been the only complaint, he was satisfied the men would have lifted them. On and after February 28, however, the defects in the hatches other than weight substantially disappeared and the men should have worked them without hooks.

The tribunal consisted of the Chief Justice, Sir Humphrey O'Lear?’ (chairman), with Captain H. A. Anderson (lor the Waterfront Industry Commission), Mr K. A. Belford (tor the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association), and Mr A. Drennan and Mr T. Hill (for the Waterside Workers’ Union).

Order of Reference

The following is a summary of the

order of reference- for the tribunal:— 1. Were the' Mountpark hatches safe to remove by hand on February 20 and subsequent days, having regard to the letter of February 13 Irom the Government Inspector of Waterside Gear at Auckland and all other relevant considerations? Was the Union Steam Ship Company justified in dismissing the men employed? If not. what payment 'should be made to the men dismissed? If the men were not properly placed on penalty, what payments should-be made io them?

2. Was the Waterfront Industry Commission’s decision of February 25 a proper decision? Were the men entitled to refuse resumption of work in accordance with that decision on subsequent days? 3. Were the men entitled to refuse to move the Mountpark’s hatches on May 20 without mechanical assistance? -

4. Was the Waterfront Industry Commission justified in deciding on June 24 that the Mountpark be made a preference ship? If not, what payment, should be made to the watersiders who would otherwise have been offered employment? 5. Was the dismissal of the men from the Broompark on June 30 justified? If not, what payments should be made to the men dismissed and placed on penalty?