DISMISSALS AT WESTPORT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 180, 2 July 1931, Page 5

DISMISSALS AT WESTPORT.

ENQUIRY BY LABOUR LEADER. GOVERNMENT’S ACTION EXPLAINED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, July 1In the House of Representatives to day, the Leader of the Labour Party, Mr 11. E. Holland, asked the Minister of Marine, Hon. J. B. Donald, whether he had seen a Press Association message from Westport referring to the dismissal of Harbour Board employees and whether it was correct that their dismissal had been made in consequence of the waterside workers' decision not to handle certain coal. He asked, further, whether in view of the fact that the harbour employees were in no way involved in the handling of coal or the loading or unloading of ships, the Minister would at once instruct the department that the lock-out was not to be continued. On the other hand if the dismissal was not a technical move made by way of retaliation against the waterside workers would the Minister inform the House why the wholesale dismissals had been decided upon.

Mr Donald, replying, said that in April last the export of coal which usually averaged 5b,000 tons a month had fallen to 29,000 tons. _ Breakwater extension work was being carried on out of the savings and current revenue. Owing to the greatly reduced output of coal (on the revenues from which the port was financed) it became evident that the department could not carry on tho _ work and therefore Cabinet had decided that it was to be closed down as soon as the work necessary to round off and safeguard what had already been done had been completed. It was for this reason that the men engaged in the breakwater extension work had been paid off. With regard to the casual harbour employees who had been notified that they were to be paid off, the necessity for this was that the department had sufficient coal to last only three days for its dredging operations and it had therefore decided to lay up the dredges until coaling operations again commenced.

It by no means necessarily followed that the state of the river and depth of water on the bar would be prejudicially affected, and it was earnestly hoped that any undue delay in the resumption of work would not hare this effect.