Wharf Control; Welling’n Workers’ Objections

Northern Advocate, 13 September 1940, Page 3

Wharf Control; Welling’n Workers’ Objections

[Special to “Northern Advocate”] WELLINGTON, This Day.

Mr T. N. Warren, on behalf of the Wellington branch of the Watersiders’ Federation, made a statement yesterday in reply to that made by the chairman of the Waterfront Control Commission (Mr R. E. Price) in Auckland.

“The Wellington branch of the Federation was in receipt of. and gave full discussion to, the contents of a copy of the contract arrived at by the commission with the employers,” said Mr Warren, “and decided that, as a party to the contract, it should have been consulted before its acceptance. “The negotiating of a separate contract with the Wellington Harbour Board comes under the same structure. “The principals in the contract. are the only ones who should negotiate its terms. “Minister Will Understand.” “Acceptance of the agreement by the commissioner with the board implies the justice of the claims of the 400 men involved with retrospective payment for work already performed. "The union claims that if a contract must be entered into, they, as a party to the contract, are the only ones, as a legally constituted corporate body, who have the right to its acceptance or otherwise, and do not agree with arbitrary acceptance of the conditions and payment arrived at by the comm tssion. “As pioneers of the co-operative Labour movement in New Zealand, the union feels that the Minister for Labour (Mr Webb) and Mr J. O'Brien, M.P.. would fully understand and appreciate their protest.” Statement by Price. A further statement on the motion moved by Mr Warren, and carried at a stopwork meeting of members of the Wellington branch of the Waterside Workers’ Federation yesterday, was made by Mr Price last night. “The full text of the resolution moved by Mr Warren was placed before me today,” Mr Price said, “and I note it expresses complaint because the contract system is operating, while at the same time complaining because it does not apply to all waterside workers. Inconsistency of Highest Order. “Surely this is inconsistency of the highest order. “The resolution goes on to complain that nothing is known of the terms of the contract, and the mover emphasises this in speaking to the motion. “Yet he concludes by foretelling the ultimate effect of the contract he claims to know nothing about. “In his answer to my reply, Mr Warren admits that the terms of the contract were fully discussed at the stopwork meeting at which the resolution was passed.”