MINISTER ALLEGES THAT WATERSIDERS BREAK AGREEMENT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22663, 14 June 1948, Page 6

MINISTER ALLEGES THAT WATERSIDERS BREAK AGREEMENT

(P A ) WELLINGTON. June 12. The Minister ot Labour, Mr. A. McLagan, stated that notwithstanding a written acceptance by the national secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union of the Government's offer to appoint an emergency disputes committee to determine the original Mountpark dispute in March last, which offer was made entirely without prejudice to the present dispute, the union’s officials had now informed the Government that its acceptance of the Government s ohet was conditional on hooks or legs being provided for the removal of tne hatches of the Mountpark at the present time. An agreement was arrived at between the Waterfront Inquiry Commission and union officials on March 17 last for a resumption of work at that time and. in the circumstances then existing, has no connection whatever with the present Mountpark dispute,” he said. Hooks Not Used Elsewhere “Two months have elapsed. The ship has been away from New Zealand and has returned. It was worked in Australia without hooks. Part ot the cargo was discharged on the present- trip at Wellington without hooks and the hatches were handled by nonunion labour at Auckland on the first day without hooks, and without any protest from the non-unionists employed. . “The hatches have again been examined by nautical surveyors 01 u»Ivlarine Department who have certified that the hatches comply with the general harbour regulations and are safe to handle by hand. _ “In March last union officials suggested taking Court proceedings with respect to the original Mountpark dispute and the commission stated that it would facilitate, so far as it was able, the hearing of any such Court Pr “When n °union officials proposed to commence these proceedings they asked the commission to admit that the commission was the employer of the men concerned and had dismissed them This the commission could not admit because, as everybody knew, the Union Steam Ship Company was the employer of the men and had dismissed labour on February 20 before any dispute had been referred to the commission. “Defences Bound to Succeed” “Union officials also then found that in any proceedings before the Court they would be faced with defences which were bound to succeed. It is no fault of the commission that the unions representatives, who proposed the taking of Court proceedings, failed to • consider adequately whether these proceedings could succeed. “Union officials then asked the Government to amend the wate. front industry emergency regulations with retrospective effect to enable the matters i n dispute to be determined by a Court* notwithstanding that the commission had already determined these matters and its decision was final and binding. ... •• xhe Government, although under no obligation to do so, took the view that it would be happy to have the facts the dispute determined again by a Court if that was practicable. “On investigation, nowever, it was found that it was not possible to make any such amendment to the regulations. The Government then made an offer to appoint an emergency disputes committee with a judge of the Supreme Court as chairman to determine the original Mountpark dispute. This, m essence, would give the union what its officials said it wanted—the right to have the dispute reheard and the justice or otherwise of the Waterfront Commission’s decision determined by an independent and judicial tribunal.” Union’s Unqualified Acceptance The Minister quoted correspondence which passed between him -md Mr. T. Hill, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, and continued: , “On the receipt of an unqualified acceptance of the Government’s offer an approach was made to the employers concerned who agreed to the appointment of a tribunal following which the Attorney-General was requested to approach the Chief Justice with a view to a Supreme Court judge being made available. “Now that the union’s officials have been given an opportunity of having the matter adjudicated upon by a tribunal presided over by a Supreme Court Judge, and after they have given a written acceptance of that offer, they have made a cool claim that as a condition of having the dispute reheard at their own request, the Government must admit that they are right in the present dispute and that the commission is completely wrong. “Such an admission would be completely at variance with the facts anod cannot be made for that very reason. “The union's officials have ail along claimed that their only desire is to have the original dispute reheard by a judicial body. They now have been given that opportunity and Hie not prepared to accept it. Government’s Offer Still Open

“One is reminded of the propaganda about their proposed legal action when they charged the Union Steam' Ship Company with having committed a lock-out” and the subsequent ignominious withdrawal of that action. “The Government's o6rer ot a tribunal is still open and '.he mailer Ccn be heard and determined on its incuts as soon as the union's officials are prepared to implement their acceptance of that offer. “The Government has always endeavoured to organise the waterfront industry in the interests of cur people as a whole and to ensure that the legitimate interests of the waterfront workers are fully protected. As a result the wages and conditions ot employment are better than at any previous period. “The Government will maintain this policy, but progress is only possible if the negotiations are carried on under reasonable condition and agreements when made are kept.’’