ARBITRATION COURT.

Grey River Argus, 18 July 1922, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

WATERSIDBRS’ DISPUTE. I — CHRISTCHURCH, July 15. ' Further lengthy evidence was heard by the Court of Arbitration in connection with the Westport, Grevmouth, Timaru, and Lyttelton watorsiders * dispute. Evidence has already been taken at Auckland, Wellington, and Dunedin, with a view to making a Dominion award. The employers have cited lhe unions, and are seeking a substantial reduction in rates and alterations in i working' conditions. I His Honour, Mr .Fustice Frazer, presided, having with him Messrs W. Scott ' I (employers’ representative) and M. J. ■ Reardon (employees’ representative). I Mr W. G. Smith conducted the case for (the employers, and Air J. Roberts, see- | rotary of the New Zealand Watersid- ; er.s’ Federation, that for the employees | The case in connection with Grey- ■ mouth and Westport, which had already occupied two days, was further proceeded with. CASE FOR THE WORKERS. Air Roberts, in opening the case for the unions, said that the Greymouth and Westport unions were. different from other unions in that, they wore | the only ports in New Zealand that | worked on the shift system. The em- ! ployers for some years had demanded that that system should operate, but ! now their proposals showed that they - wanted both the shift system and con- ' tinuous work. One clause asked that the workers should work, until discharged. They should be clear and definite in their proposals, and if they wanted the shift system they should state that shifts should start at 8 a.m.. 6 p.m., and 11 p.m. or midnight. Air Smith had said that there were few matters of difference between the parties, and ! that the chief matter in < ispute was that of continuous work. However, the proposed reductions in wages were greater than in the dispute of any ! union. In some cases the amount was ■ as much as 2/- an hour. | Air Smith pointed out that the last increase was 1/9. ' Air Roberts said that so far as or- ; di nary time was concerned, the last increase had been nothing, and hud applied to overtime only. It was pro- | posed to reduce the ordinary time for I handling coal by 6}d overtime to .10 p.m | or midnight by 1/3:10, and 2/3j|d aitcrj wards, so that Air Smith was hardly correct in saying that there were tew ! differences. If the reductions on geni oral cargo were brought into operation it would be impossible for the men to ! exist. The employers wanted a flat .rate, so that they could work the men overtime as much as they wished with--1 out paying overtime rates. At previous conferences, representatives ol the companies had said that it would be unreasonable for men to work after midI night without receiving extra pay. Prior to the difference in rates beingpaid, men who were working night aft- . er night handling coal were idle d iy ’ after day, but where general cargo, lor I which overtime was payable at nigut, j was concerned, the men were mostly ' employed during the day. The time ; book of one man in 1916, before the different rates came in showed thfiv he worked one night shift per week, but the same man in 1921 worked on 20 night shifts only throughout the year. It was a recognised principle oi all industries that overtime was worth more than ordinary time work. The “back shift” was worked very little at Greyinouth, owing to the overtime j rates. That showed that restrictions ; would be necessary to prevent the men I being unn-ccessarily worked at night if ' there were a flat rate. Air Roberts added that he had never before I heard the employers object to the I “average” system of working; in fact, they had always previously described it as a sane and sensible system. In conclusion, Air Roberts, said that the men on the West Coast worked under weather conditions which applied to no ' other ports in New Zealand, and that was a point that the Court should take ; into consideration. Another point to ' be considered was that the present satisfactory agreement at Greyinouth was arrived at by people who throughly understood the port’s industries anti conditions. THE EVIDENCE. I Charles Fraser, president of the Greymouth Union, who had been employed as a wateresidcr for about 20 years, gave evidence in regard to Greymouth. Regarding midnight shifts in wintci, 1 witness considered that the employeis I were ready to cut out a reasonable condition in tire old agreement. He con- ! sidered it unfair and unnecessary to bring the men out after midnight. Before the difficulty arose with the local manager of a steamship company, “critical circumstances” was taken to mean a bad bar, or a ship finishing, but the manager appeared to construe everything into “special cireumstan ces.” Eventually the agreement, had been entered into, and there had been no trouble since. Conditions as to wet weather woik haa ■ also improved since. In regard to Saturday afternoon work, 4/7 per hour was paid for coal and 4/- for timber j and general cargo, and the employers proposals meant that 2/32d would be paid for coal and 2/8. 1 d for timber and general cargo. By the employers’ proposals too, the payment of the retaining fee, or the minimum on wet Saturday af- | ternoons could be dodged altogether . such was the conflict of the clauses. | Air Smith said that the only object ' of the “special circumstances” clause in the employers’ proposals was not to deprive the men of pay, but. to ensure that Ihe m-en would not knock off whenever a shower came, Naturally

men would not work if Ibev were paid when they wore .not working. Continuing, witness said he did not think that, the men should be askml to start at midnight on Sundays. A man should be entitled to spend the whole of his Sunday night in bed. especially when he worked on the midnight shift on other nights. Witness touched on various points to show that the present agreement worked satisfactorily, and that the employers’ proposals would not. The proposal that a man should continue nt the job to which he was sent until it was finished and then be discharged, he considered would do away with the shift system, anc was in fact, a ridiculous idea: if it were operated, many a man would l>p “carried off the ship on a stretcher.’’ It was the employers themselves who had instituted the shift system. _\ man could not demand to work overtime. Coming to the matter of the “wetweather clause” the witness said that the present arrangements worked satisfactorily at Greyinouth. Th-.? men had never been accused, or very seldom, of ' abusing the clause. They did not knock off for every shower, but only I when heavy rain was falling. Asked if he had (’ver known prefer-j ■•nee io unionists to be abused at Greymoath. witness said that he had. and quoted his own case, stating that' after the 1913 strike, though he had worked for 10 years on that, walerfront, he was refused admission . new union for three years. The matter of discrimination, too, had been abused in his case as well as particularly by the- Union Steam Ship Company. Alen had been passed ever when work was offering. In regard to the proposal to extend the 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift to midnight without a break for a meal, witness expressed his entire dissatisfaction with the. idea, which, he thought if put into operation would eventually extend “all roui clock.” So far as the mines were concerned, he had never heard of their having to stop because the watersid vrs’ midnight shift had not been worked. The work at Grevmouth, he considered, was now being carried on as efficiently as ever it had been. The standard of the waterside? was high, and there was no “go slow” about him. The average amount of timber i handled in a stretch of 20 hours and a half was’62oo feet an hour, inclusive I of railway shunting. On one occasion ; a ship loaded 1,200,000 feet as a cost of £485, and the freight upon it amounted to £3600. “SPEEDING UP” THE PROCEEDINGS. In view of the length of time the ease was taking, with the Timaru r. Lyttelton cases si ill to be heard, his Honour said the Court, wouhl be prepared to sit that night, all day to-day aind all day on Alonday and Monday night as well. After Alonday, the Court’s time would be fully occupied with other cases, of which there would be, in som-e instances, three a day. It appeared to him, His Honour proceeded. that quite a lot of the evidence was repetition, and while h-e wished to bo quite fair to both sides, he thought 1 that many questions of general application might be left to the advocates without prejudicing the case of either side. Air Smith said he was willing to fall in with whatever the Court proposed, and Mr Roberts, although he did not wish to attend that evening or this afternoon, agreed to expedite matters us much as possible. In reply to Smith, Air Fraser said that the entrance fee to the union was 5/-, the subscription was 5/- a year there was a levy of £1 per year, and a local levy of 3d per week. Harry Kirk, secretary of the Greymouth Union, speaking in regard to the extra rates for special cargoes, said that under th-e old agreement the rates applied to over 25 tons of the cargo “in the ship,” while the employers’ proposals said “in the hatch.” That being so, it would be possible to place 25 tons in various parts of the ship without paying any extra rate. Witness gave evidence largely on the lin-es of that of the previous witness regarding the ■employers’ proposals, and the satisfactory working of the present agreement. Witness spoke highly of the standard of the Greymouth watersiders, who he said, had always given satisfaction to the employers. William Henry Woodcock, secretary of th-e Westport Union, gave evidence in regard to Westport on generally similar lines, after which the Court adjturned until 9.30 a.m. to-day.