Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Wharf Dispute Decision: Claim ’By Commission

(PA.) WELLINGTON, This Day. The general manager of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Mr L. 11. Beckett, said today that the decision of the emergency disputes committee in respect of the Mountpark dispute completely upheld the attitude of the Waterfront Industry Commission as to the manner in which the hatches of the Mountpark should be handled. The commission on February 25 laid down that on receipt of a certificate from an expert nominated by the superintendent of mercantile marine at Auckland, to the effect that the hatches complied with the Government regulations and were safe to handle, the hatches should thereafter be handled without mechanical assistance. This certificate was obtained on February 28 and the decision of the Chief Justice stated that on February 28 and thereafter, during the then stay of the Mountpark, the hatches were safe to handle and no reasonable objection should have been made to them.

Commission’s Ruling

The decision further stated that the men should have worked without hooks from that day onwards.

Regarding the payment awarded, Mr Bockett stated that the Waterfront Industry Commission, in its decision of February 25 awarded six. hours a day amounting to £551 5s Bd. The decision of the emergency disputes committee provides that the full amount of the wages which could have been earned by the men, namely £935 12s lOd, shall be paid. . The Chief Justice, in his decision, expressly stated that dissatisfaction with the amount awarded by the commission did not justify the further refusal to work. The decision added that the claim that the hatches still did not comply with the regulations and were unsafe at that, time was a more substantial ground and that, notwithstanding that the. men were offered hooks, in view of their previous experience with defective hatches the men were entitled to refuse employment and should not have been put on penalty until after’ February 28, when the hatches were certified as complying with the regulations and safe to handle. , .... Loss of Wages

The emergency disputes committee decision accordingly awarded a further £363 14s 8d in respect of the men penalised on February 26 and 27. Their loss of wages with respect to the first Mountpark dispute was £6956 2s 6d, of which the emergency disputes committee has awarded payments totalling £1299 6s. The loss of wages for the second Mountpark dispute was £31,273, 13s sd, and for the* Eroompark dispute £219 6s 3d. No payment was awarded to the men on account of these two disputes. (Earlier messages on Page 3).

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19480817.2.52

Bibliographic details

Greymouth Evening Star, 17 August 1948, Page 5

Word Count
426

Wharf Dispute Decision: Claim ’By Commission Greymouth Evening Star, 17 August 1948, Page 5

Wharf Dispute Decision: Claim ’By Commission Greymouth Evening Star, 17 August 1948, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert