CHARGES REFUTED

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

CHARGES REFUTED

ISSUES OUTLINED FALL IN OUTPUT CAPTAIN HOLM'S REPLY (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 7. Mr. Barnes' statement had a familiar ring and actually the waterside workers. having been unable to gain the whole of their claims by constitutional means, had resorted to direct action, said the general secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Employers’ Association, Captain M. T. Holm, in reply to the statement made by Mr. H. Barnes, president of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union and a member of the Waterfront, Industry Commission. Meal Money Statement Incorrect Mr. Barnes’ assertion that Captain Holm refused to pay meal money in accordance with the commission's order was incorrect, said Captain Holm. What he did was to refuse to accept the union's interpretation of the meal money order. This order was subsequently clarified by the commission making an amendment to it. Mr. Barnes had said that in London the dockers and stevedores received a guarantee of 12s a day, but he failed to point out that this was for attendance twice a day. The men were paid 6s for attendance at the morning call and 6s for the afternoon call if they were not employed, but they were required to accept any work that was offered them. The payment of attendance money in London had proved, unsatisfactory, and the workers were now asking that a guaranteed Wage be paid in lieu of it. "The reference by Mr. Barnes to the effect that the margin decided upon by the Court of Arbitration in 1922 of 25 per cent above the rate for general labour no longer existed calls for comment,” said Captain Holm. “The facts are that the waterside workers were paid 25 per cent above the court’s basic wage rate for casual, unskilled workers, and this basis was arrived at after taking into consideration the average hours each week at the four main ports by a substantial number of waterside workers. Casual Rate Increase “'ln December, 1924, the court again adopted the same basis when the return of hours of work of waterside workers averaged 35.64 hours weekly, and in order to allow waterside workers to earn as much in 35.64 hours as a general labourer would earn if working 44 hours per week, the hourly rate of waterside workers was increased by 25 per cent above the general labourer. “Since then watersiders have been granted a number of conditions which improve their earnings, and the returns of the wages of waterside workers recently published by the Waterside Industry Commission show that the average wage earned by waterside workers throughout New Zealand is £lO 6s 7d per week, and the average hours worked 41 ? s per week. "It is clear, therefore, that the casual nature of the work has bee?* practically removed. The wage rate of the waterside worker is Id an hour higher than the award rate for skilled workers.”

Fixing of Contract Rates

Mr. Barnes was incorrect in stating that the present co-operative stevedoring contract rates were agreed upon by the employers as a fair average. They were fixed arbitrarily by the Waterfront Control Commission on which the employers’ contention was that they should be fixed on what was considered as a fair output per gang per hour.

It was on this winch time basis that Mr. Barnes contended that the waterside workers had increased their output by 30 per cent. “He well knows that output to-day at the main ports does not show any improvement, and that the turn-round of ships has been further slowed up during the last 12 months by restricted hours of work,” said Captain Holm. “To-day we have the position that the waterside workers are receiving a bonus under the co-operative contract system supposedly for accelerating work, while in actual fact they arc delaying work by an overtime strike which reduces hours by 19 a week.”