Non-Unionists’ Claim For Waterfront Bonus

Northern Advocate, 6 September 1945, Page 3

Non-Unionists’ Claim For Waterfront Bonus

(Special.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Conditions on the waterfront, with particular reference to Auckland, and differences which have developed, between union and non-union waterside workers over the payment of a profit of £660,000 made d uring' the past five years under a bonus system operated by the Waterfront Control Commission, came under lengthy discussion in the House of Representatives yesterday.

The subject of waterside workers arose when Mr D. W. Coleman (Government—Gisborne), as chairman of the Labour Bills Committee, was reporting to the House the recommendations of the committee on a petition by William P. Storey and 64 others which had been presented by Mr R. M. Algie (Opposition— Remuera).

The petition prayed for the payment of bonuses to non-unionist waterside workers and the committee recommended that the Government should give favourable consideration to this. Other portions of the petition were that the application of the term “seagull” to non-unionist workers should be made illegal, that shelters should be erected on the waterfront for the use of non-unionist workers, and that there should be a better system' for the employment of- labour. The committee had no recommendation to make on these requests. Consideration Only. When the committee’s report had been presented, Mr F. Hackett (Government—Grey Lynn) rose to a point of order and said that the committee’s recommendation had been merely for consideration by the Government and not for favourable consideration.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Holland), as a member of the committee, replied that it had been suggested that, although the original suggestion of the committee had been to forward this clause in the petition for consideration, he had not been in favour of this course and it had been changed to favourable consideration.

Mr Algie said that the petitioners said that as non-unionists who had contributed to the making of profits they were entitled to some share In their distribution. He hoped the Government, when it considered the recommendations, would be as generous as the committee had been.

Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition— Stratford) said the Waterfront Controller (Mr James Roberts) had told the committee that under the commission’s control profits represented £660,000 in the past five years. Mr Poison did not complain of the system or the profits. It was the question of distribution. There were about 2000 members of the Waterside Workers’ Union in Auckland, but sometimes as many as 5000 men had been required on the Auckland wharves simultaneously. Those who assisted on the wharves at times of stress where members of the union could not cope with the work were non-unionists, largely because the union’s membership was Jhniteu

Some Merit.

Mr Poison continued that Mr Roberts had told the committee that the distribution of profits in the form of a bonus to non-unionists was impracticable, although it was not inequitable. But the fact was that for 18 months non-unionists were included in the distribution and their petition for that system to continue had merit

Mr Hackett said that the watersiders would not object to sharing the bonuses with what might be termed legitimate non-unionists those who depended on the waterfront for a living. The sum of £660,000 in profits sounded impressive, but it actually represented only about £2O a man yearly over five years for some 7000 unionists in ports controlled by the Waterfront Commission. The impracticability of including nonunionists in the bonuses was illustrated by the fact, that about 25.000 of them had worked cu the Auckland waterfront during ihe war years, continued Mr Hackett. Most of them had other employment and worked on the wharf only when penalty rates were being paid. The membership of the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union, normally about 1100, had been increased to 2000 during the war, but that number was probably too great for peacetime and members retiring on account of age probably would not be replaced.

Impracticable Now

Had there been only about 100 “seagulls," as in normal times, (he union would gladly have included them in the bonus distribution, but with a number at 25,C00 it was impracticable to do so. Mr Holland said the question involved the rights of workers as a whole. The Waterfront Commission had introduced what might be called incentive pay—payment by results, which was the National Party’s policy. (Government laughter). The "seagulls,” who were locked out of the union, were permitted to take only crumbs from the union's table, which meant that certain people had a monopoly. Mr Coleman said that: some time ago a bonus was paid to all who worked on ships, but this was later discontinued by the Waterfront Control Commission who decided to pay a bonus to subcontractors, that was, members of a union. “Seagulls” went on to the wharves for (heir own purposes, being attracted by the big money to be earned during the week-ends and he did not blame them. They did not earn their living on the wharves. Mr Coleman concluded that evidence given by Mr Roberts proved that, payment of the bonus to “seagulls” was absolutely impracticable because of the enormous amount of clerical work involved.

The committee’s report was adopted