WHARF INQUIRY

Grey River Argus, 31 July 1940, Page 5

WHARF INQUIRY

MONTEREY CARGO Reason Why Some was not Loaded I Per Press Association] AUCKLAND, July 29. An investigation into the action of the waterside workers who leftisc-u to continue loading operations on the Matson liner Monterey on Saturday evening is being conducted by the Auckland waterfront controller, Captain Stanich, who will make a report to the Waterfront Commission. None of the men had been excluded from the waterfront for their action, as had occurred after the waterside workers had refused the commission’s request to work extended hours on July 13, said Captain Stasich. Men permanently employed by the stevedore company in charge of the loading operations continued witn the work after the waterside workers had left the job, and they were assisted by the cranemen, who continued to work the cranes. The cranemen were employed by the Auckland [Harbour Board. The agents of the Matson L Henderson and Macfarlane, did not aiticipate that loading would not be completed by 6 o’clock; but one m the derricks on the ship down and loading operations were de.ayed.

WELLINGTON, July 30. The facts elicited by the Waterfront Control Commission, in its investigation into the refusal of Auc land waterside workers to continue loading the liner Monterey after six p.m. on Saturday, which resulted m cargo being left behind when the ship sailed for Suva, were stated to-day by the chairman of the Commission, Mr Price, on receipt of the report from Captain Stanich, Waterfront Controller at Auckland. Mr Price said that men were engaged to start work a 11 a.m. on the arrival of the Monterey, which had been delayed in Tasman Sea. The Union representative and two Wharf Superintendents were advised by the company the loading would be completed by o p m., and that there would be no need for extended hours to be worked During the afternoon, a request was made for the men to work until six p.m. to finish the loading, and they agreed to do so. At 4.30 p.m. the time-keeper approached the gangs in the big hatches, and asked, them to knock off at 5 p.m. and return at 6 p.m. This the men refused to do. It appeared to him, from the repor., that if the company had given an order in the forenoon, for even one or two of the five gangs to work after 6 pm.( there would have been no difficulty, Mr Price stated. Further, had the Waterfront Controller, or either cf the Wharf Superintendents been advised that there was a doubt about i men not working late, appropriate arI rangements could have been made; but, for some reason, neither Cap- ! tain Stanich nor the Wharf SuperI intendents were consulted. The com- ! pany had been insistent that the men would finish about 5 or 6 p.m., and (hey had not anticipated any necessity for working extended hours. The reason why notice of an intention to work cargo after 6 p.m. on Saturday was required during the forenoon waJ to enable the men to advise their homes, during the lunch hours, th.it they would not be home for tea. It also enabled those men who had made prior arrangements for Saturday night to notify the Bureau, so that they could be replaced. In the case of the Monterey, the men had ,<o knowledge when they started work in the morning that they would be required to work extended hours; in j fact, they were told that they would I not be called upon to work such | hours

Mr Price added that the report did not indicate the full circumstances of the loading, and a further report had been asked.for. The rate of loading in two of the hatches appeared to have been slow, but there might have been special reasons. In the other hatches the men had done exceptionally good work, according to the stevedore. In one case, overloading of slings had carried gear away, with a consequent delay of half an hour. The cargo left on the wharf consisted of two hundred sacks of hides and fifty sacks of meat casings.