WHARF COMMISSION MAY END

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22197, 6 December 1946, Page 6

WHARF COMMISSION MAY END

MR. FRASER’S VIEW

GOOD WORK DONE BENEFITS FOR MEN PAYMENT AND CONDITIONS (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Doc. 6. Referring to the waterfront situation the Prime Minister. Mr. P. Fraser, said yesterday that the impasse which had been reached raised the question whether the Waterfront Industry Commission would lie able to continue to function. Obviously, it could only operate effectively while its authority was observed by both employers and workers.

“The present situation makes it necessary to consider whether commission form of control is to continue, and this will have to be decided by Cabinet,” said Mr. Fraser. The alternative. he continued, would be for the waterside employers and workers to revert to the relationship existing prior to the setting up of the commission in 1940. Success During the War Thc Waterfront Control Commission was set up in April, 1940, when it was vital to the war effort to expedite the turning round of ships. The commission carried out most successfully the difficult job of organising the loading and discharging of vessels during the war, and the time taken to turn round overseas vessels was very much icduced. At the same time, with the understanding and administration of the commission and with the co-opera-tion of waterside workers, stoppages of work were reduced to a minimum. Following the end of hostilities, the New Zealand Waterside Workers Union approached the Government requesting the reconstruction of the commission' on a peace-time basis with two employers’ nominees and two workers nominees and an independent chairman. A similar request had been made by the employers.

The Government gave effect to the request of the union and shipping companies, and on July 1, 1946, appointed the Waterfront Industry Commission with Mr. Justice Ongley as chairman and two nominees from each of the workers and employers’ organisations.

“Both the Waterfront Control Commission and the Waterfront Industry Commission have done much in improving the conditions of employment of the watersiders and in maintaining harmony on the waterfront. ’ said Mr. Fraser. “The Waterfront Control Commission was responsible for the introduction of a system of payment by results known as co-operative contracting, whereby the men received the actual amount earned on a tonnage or unit basis, and the quicker a vessel is loaded or discharged, the greater the return to the men at the hourly rate. Great Benefit to Workers

“This system has been of great benefit to the waterside workers and the industry, and I understand that the profit distributed under that contracting system now amounts to approximately £200,000 per annum. “The Waterfront Control Commission was also responsible for increasing the rate of pay by 2d an hour in June, 1940 and for improving Ihe minimum period payments from a two-nour minimum to a four-hour minimum. Other wage increases were made in line with the Court of Arbitration. Hours of work at the main ports were reduced from 10 p.m. to 9 p.m. and Saturday afternoon work was cancelled, except where 3 vessel could finish hy ° "The Waterfront Industry Commission lias recently instituted further improvements for waterside workers in the payment for statutory holidays meal money where overtime is performed and time and a half for Saturday morning in lieu of time and a quauei previously paid. .. “These improvements alone are estimated to cost approximately £IBO,OOO per annum. The effect of tne various improvements in conditions, and ihe organising of the work by the c°irimission has had the result of materially eliminating the uncertain- and temporary nature of waterside work. 1 think.it would be correct to say that under commission control the waterside workers have enjoyed substantial improvements in their conditions unparalleled in any other period in tne history of the waterfront.

System Jeopardised To-day

‘‘Unfortunately, however, this form of control is jeopardised to-day. It is provided in the regulations that where members of the commission are unable to reach a decision, the decision of the chairman shall be the decision of the commission. In this case agreement could not be arrived at and. in accordance with the regulations, Mr. Justice Onglcy made a decision. “The effect of the decision is to provide for an attendance payment for men attending calls of labour and not employed from the commencement of a call. In addition the men in this key industry are guaranteed a minimum wage of £25 in each four-weekly oeriod for A-grade workers, and £2l in each four weeks for B-grade workers. • Other A-grade workers arc guaranteed a minimum income of £325 a year, and B-grr.'*- workers a minimum of £273 a year. The distribution of profits under the contracting system will continue and means a further payment of some £200,000 per annum at the present stage, or an average of £4O per man per annum for'those participating. “I am advised that these terms have been rejected bv the national executive nf the New Zealand waterside Workers Union The effect of this action completely nullifies the work of ttic Waterfront Industrv Commission. It is evident that if the decisions of the commission properly arrived at are not to be accepted, then the commission is of no effect and its continuance is impossible to justify.”

CHAIRMAN’S REPLY

IMPASSE REACHED

RESTS WITH CABINET

POSITION CLARIFIED

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. C. The chairman of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Mr. Justice Ongjev, stated that the commission had met to' consider the action taken by the Auckland. Wellington and New Plymouth branches of the Waterside Workers Union in introducing a five-day 40-hour week as a protest against his decision on the guaranteed wage for waterside workers.

The union icpresentatives on the commission submitted a statement from their national executive, which directed all major and secondary ports to introduce immediately a 40-hour week between 9 a.m. and a p.m., Monday to Friday inclusive. It was stated that this action was a protest against the chairman’s decision on the guaran-teed-wage case, and would continue until a decision satisfactory .to the union had been brought down. Failure to Reach Agreement

The union also submitted further demands for increases in wages, an improvement in acccfirmiodalion and amenities, and also a demand for the abolition of the engagement of labour on Saturday morning. The commission discussed the matter with a view to obtaining a resumption of normal hours of work, but could reach no agreement. Union representatives on the commission stated that they could not agree to vary the decision of their national executive, which represented its minimum demands. The employers’ representatives stated that while they considered that the chairman’s decision regarding .the guaranteed wage favoured the worker, it was a legal decision of the commission and should be upheld. It was pointed out that the commission could continue to function only as long as its authority was observed, and in the circumstances, the chairman considered the impasse which had been reached should be reported to the Government.

“This has now been done,” Mr. Justice Ongiey added, “and it rests with the Government to determine the future policy in connection with the commission”

The chairman said that some workers might not be clear as to what was meant by his decision, and in order to clarify the position he desired to explain the decision as follows: Payment For Attendance.

“(a) The principle is established .that men required to attend lor employment should receive reasonable payment for attending if they are not given employment and to bring that principle into effect I decided that where men were required to attend calls for labour, and attended and did not receive engagement from 8 a.m.. they would be paid for the period of the call at the rate of pay applicable, which is at most ports two hours at 351 and equals (i/11, Mondays to Fridays inclusive, and on Saturday morning two hours at 5/OJ, which equals 10/0L "At some ports there is more than one call a dav, usually of one hour duration per call. The attendance payment is estimated to cost £40,000 per annum. “(b) The Principle is established that men required to give service in this key industry should get a reasonable livelihood in return for such service. To give effect to this principle, the decision provides that A grade waterside workers at alt main and such secondary ports as may from time to time be determined, would be guaranteed work in each four-weekly period to the value of £25. or failing the provision of such work, should be paid that sum. B grade waterside workers are guaranteed work to the value of £2l. “This guarantee ensures that an Agrade worker will receive at least £325 per annum, and a B worker £273 per annum. This docs not take into account any profit distribution under the contracting svstem, which now amounts to approximately £200,000 per annum, and means a further payment of an average of £4O per man per annum as work is regular and plentiful at the main ports. Benefit to Secondary Forts

“The guarantee may not benefit workers at those ports very much at present, but it will be an immediate benefit to secondary ports. It is a guarantee of livelihood in slack periods, and during such periods may be a greater benefit to the workers than their original claim. "If a worker has earned his £25 in the four-weekly period, he continues, of course, to receive attendance money when not employed. “(c) The principle is established that labour for the industry should be efficient, regular and mobile, that there should be no waste of labour in the industry, and that all services paid for should be fairly rendered before the attendance payment and guaranteed wage can come into operation. Reasonable relaxation in' the present restrictions on the transfer and mobility of labour is necessary.

“The system known as ‘spelling’ in operation at some ports, whereby men in certain cases work hour-about, is to cease and a reasonable method adopted for men to relieve one another during ‘smoko’ periods.” The chairman also referred to the fact that the Waterfront Industry Commission had since its appointment granted improvements in conditions by way of payment for statutory holidays, payment of meal money when overtime was worked, and had increased the pay on Saturday morning from time and a quarter to time and a half. These improvements were estimated to cost £IBO,OOO per annum.