WATERFRONT DELAY CONTINUES

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22198, 7 December 1946, Page 8

WATERFRONT DELAY CONTINUES

COMPANIES BLAMED \ MR. BARNES’ VIEW FAILURE OF TALKS CONCILIATION LACKING (P.A.) WELLINGTON. Dec. 7. Blame for the present failure to obtain agreement in the waterfront dispute is placed upon the employers’ representatives on the Waterfront Industry Commission by the president of the New , Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, Mr. H. Barnes, in a s-atement he has issued. “The facts are that when the Commission met on Wednesday the chairman stated that he was not bound by his decision on the, guaranteed wage, but was quite agreeable to having it recommitted.” said Mr. Barnes. We agreed to recommit it. but Mr. Belford, employers’ representative, dug bis toes in and refused to have the matter reopened. Meal Money Refusal “We pointed out that.on the question of meal money Captain M. T. Holm Secretary of the Waterside Employers’ Association, had refused to pay out as provided in the commission s order. He had asked at the time that the matter of meal monev be committed again, and we agreed. The decision of the commission on this point was eventually amended. ‘ln soite of that, thev dug their toes in when Mr. Justice Ongley was prepared to reopen consideration of me guaranteed wage. That is why negotiations broke down. We have always agreed that on any point, in the employers could show reason why the

matter should be reopened, we would agree, but despite this, and despite, Mr Justice Ongley's offer to reopen the present mailer in dispute, the employers were adamant. “This fact was an exposure of Mr. Beiiord’s previous statement that the guaranteed wage decision was not prolitabie to the employers. If the employers did not like it, then the logical thing would have been for Mr. Beuord to have agreed to recommital of the question. The decision is, in fact, something the employers have been looking for for 30 years. It would mean complete emasculation o£ our contract of work. "That fact remains paramount—that the altitude of the employers was solely responsible for the tailure to reopen negotiations. That should be made very dear,” After quoting conditions in the port of London. Mr. Barnes said the London dockers and stevedores had a guarantee of. 12s a day, which made the New Zealand watersiders’ claims look pretty modest.

Comparison of Wages

The i\ew Zealand watersiders thiough tne war worked long Hours to maintain last turn-round ot snipping, nicy nad previously, oy decision oi tne Arbitration Court, as lar back as liu.2, recognised to nave tne right to 2j per cent, more wages than unsKilled wotKers, added Mr rvarnes. They were prepared, However, to see other workers overtake this percentage and earn more in tne war years. xoday However, whereas tlie watersiaer received 3s lid an hour, others were now receiving Js 2d or 3s A generar labourer was guaranteed £6 Is !>a a week, me 2a per cent, dinerence lor tne watersiaer nad disappeared.

i\ow tne employers were not prepared to accept claims horn the watersiders wmcn would guarantee, anyway, less man nail a weens wages, It shou'd be appreciated that under tne monthly guarantee now proposed bv the commission, a man who even so much as absented mmseii tor one day Irom the wa.ertror.t, througn some cause beyond ins control, vvouio automatically debar nimseit iroin receiving tne guaranteed wage a.ne'question oi accommodation was one tnai nas oeeu raised by tne workers tor years past, xne accommodation lacmties a.id amenities on the wa*ertrents ior wnarl worKers would rigntly Ov.u.ig to me medieval ; ges. U:i tins suo.ieci,' saio Mr. Barnes, “everyone agrees that the position shouiu oe reedned, out ior years past and still to-day the oarl is passed irom tne uuvxrnment to the commission, to tne harbour ooaras, and to the sniper* ners, and ad deny vneir responsibility.

• This stale oi aft.ms can oc contrasted wiui conanions in Australia, wnere even in tne war period the amenities were retained ai a better suinoard. Insufficient Lockers “Halt' ol our members hovn’t even lecueis. V/e are required to work all c.asses oi caigo, and are surely envuiea to decent facilities lor cleaning up, out the people who should be pro-v.-ling those iacuities are still back in tne oid days •oi wooden ships and \, -odcri wnaives. “in Auckland there are 1900 membe. o ut the 'e are on.y 954 who have inciters, and Ihe Department of Labour says tr.a*. these looters are only onet Ld the sir- they should be. . ■ .'here is ,no canteen at Auckland, arm no.hing a Lyttelton except a ratlmes.ed Coronation Hall, In Auckland there is a hall iwhich accommodates only about 950 members, though the present union membership is 1900. In Welinglon there is only seating accommodation in the hall ior 500 workers. "i’he conditions for the watersiders in New Zealand are, to say the least, poor by comparison with those of white watersiders in any part of the world. “Another matter which indicates the attitude oi the shipowners toward the workers is their inhuman treatment of shipwright carpenters, who for the last seven vears havu been working under conditions which have no relation to present-day standards enjoyed by all other workers. “When these workers amalgamated with the watersiders. steps were taken to improve their conditions. After prolonged negotiations this matter was ad~ journed at the request of the employers who promised to bring down proposals. This section of our workers was told however, that the employers had nothing to offer. The Waterside Workers’ Union is determined to see that its carpenters’ section receives the decent treatment due to any workers today „ , Sacrifices For New Ordei

“Hundreds of watersiders fought for and suffered sacrifices tor the new order’’ said Mr. Barnes, All we aie asking „ow is just the firsLcourse. “Figures over the last few years taken out by the Waterfront Commission show that watersiders have increased output by about 30 per cent. Since the co-operative contract system was instituted about £700,000 had been paid to the watersiders. It must be appreciated that the contract rates were established witho.it reference to the

union, and represent the rates that were agreed by the employers as a fair average.

"From this it should be evident that through the war years and up to date the waterside workers have done a ratio of work far in excess of what the employers themselves accepted as a fair rate. ‘The attitude of the union remains unchanged. We are prepared to enter into discussions on the disputed matters at any time. We have previously demonstrated our good faith by allowing matters to be recommitted at the employers’ request. The sole reason for the present deadlock I repeat,” said Mr Barnes is the attitude of the employers' representatives on the commission, who have persisted in their refusal, despite the fact that the chairman himself, who brought down the original decision, stated that he was not tied to U.”