WATER FRONT LABOUR.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 237, 19 September 1922, Page 2

WATER FRONT LABOUR.

NEW AWARD SOUGHT. FAULTS IN PRESENT SYSTEM. CASUAL AND IRREGULAR EMPLOYMENT. Wellington, Sept. 18. Before the Arbitration Court Mr J. Roberts opened the case for the Waterside Workers’ Federation, sketching the history of various disputes which have arisen in connection with waterside labour. “The waterfront industrial dispute which the court has to adjudicate upon,’’ remarked Mr Roberts, “is probably the most important and intricate which has been before the court in re« cent years, important because it is an industry which effective and efficient transportation of goods and merchandise depends upon an intricate on acount of the casual system of employment.” Presenting the workers ’ side of the case, Mr Roberts said there were five issues, to which he asked the court to give premier consideration. The issues were:— (1) The number of men employed in the industry, the number of people dependent on it for a livelihood, and the standard of living of those people. (2) The importance of the industry from a national outlook. All primary products produced in New Zealand for overseas markets, as well as imports, transhipments and cargo carried in the coastwise trade, were handled by the watersider workers. The courts must consider whether or not the interests of the country would be best served by granting an award which would allow such wages and conditions of employment that it would attract suitable men to perform the work connected with this department of the transnort industry. (3) The casual labour system, irregular employment and its effect on the morale of the workers, the time which men were compelled to wait for employment, the number of hours per day or per week which the worker’s services were available to the employers, the average number of hours worked pen day or per week and the number of hours they were actually employed, the workers’ inability to earn a wage consistent with a reasonable standard of living. (4) Protection against accidents to workers. He would expect the court to give them reasonable protection in the award against accidents. . Reasonable protection against accident was absolutely necessary, ns nt present there w’pre too mnny fatal, serioug and minor accidents on the water front. (5) Hours of labour engagement, distribution of work, victimisation and preference the necessity for a more efficient svsfpm of pngnging labour ns against tho obsolote and harmful svstpm at prpspnt in oporation. The average time lost hr the waterside worker in seeking work on days on which he was not employed was 34 hours nor day. Tn the larger centres the time was much longer, as Wien who lived long distances from the wharf waited for the afternoon call. Thp nocpssifv for a more equal distribution of work in order that all men necessary to operate the industry should be enabled to earn nt least a subsistence wage. That could be best established under the rotary system of engaging labour. Failing the rotary system the only method was by a drastic non-transfer clause which would compel employers to engage men who were available at the place of engagement in ‘preference to those already working. The question of individual victimisation of men oy the foreman who <’>•- gaged labour must also receive the court’s consideration, as the casual system of employment lent itself to that abuse to an extent which was not possible in any other industry. Under the present system of labour engagement the question as to whether a waterside worker should bo allowed to earn wages or that his dependents should have food was dependent solely on the whim of the foreman who engaged labour. Preference to unionists was such an important question to waterside workers that it was the only barrier against vicnuusation and the only security which the union had to obtain employment. Without it unionists could not exist on the waterfront, j:.dcss tli- workers resolved to aid' a policy of refusing to work with nonunionists, and the "Waterside Workers’ Federation did not believe that such a policy would make Col th* benefit of the industry, neither would it be in the interests of the employers or the workers. These were the main issues round which the standard of living, conditions of employment and reasonable paqtection against accidents must be considered by the court. In short they were the issues which determined to a great extent the industrial life of # the ■waterside worker.