WATERSIDE WORKERS’ AND ARBITRATION COURT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LVI, 2 December 1922, Page 7

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ AND ARBITRATION COURT

SECRETARY INTERVIEWED ON RECENT PRONOUNCEMENT

Jn the course of an interview with the Now Zealand Times on the recent pronouncement of the Arbitration Court, Mr J. Roberts, secretary of the Watcrsiders’ Federation said:— “The question has been asked by several: ‘What have the waterskin Avorkers tb say about the recent sentence of the Court?’ The only reply to that question can bo that the court lias not given them justice, and has inflicted on thorn many economic hardships. and for that reason U-c waterside workers have finished with the Arbitration Court for sill time. / The ra cent judgment pronounce! by Tlie court lias been a judgment pronounced on the court itself .as well as on the { waterside workers as far as the settling of future Avaterside disputes is concerned.” “On November 20th,” said Mr Roberts, “the Waterside Woi’kcrs of New Zealand received a type-Avrittcu sentence from the Arbi't,ration Court. It is indeed in every sense a sentence, for from the first clause setting out the wages scale to the last clause stating the term of the award it seems as if the Arbitration Court has determined to inflict as many physical hardships on the workers as possible, while it v/ill be. readily understood by all that the huge slice taken off in Avagcs will be an economic hardship on the Avomcnfolk and children Avho are dependent on the Avages earned on the water-front. Indeed, if the Avages earned during the past year, under the old agreement wages scale and conditions of employment are taken as a basis, under the provisions of the iioav economic sentence the Avaterside Avorkers and their dependents will be driven well on to the starvation line. For this reason I take the liberty of using the term ‘sentence.’ Anything that inflicts physical or economic hardships on people, I consider to be, not an award, but a sentence; and without doubt the Arbitration Court has inflicted those hardships on the waterside Avorkers in the industrial judgment it has delivered to the men employed on the Avatorfront.

THE WAGE -REDUCTIONS “It is indeed pleasing to note,” continued Mr Roberts, “that the daily Dress has commented favourably on the slight reduction on the basic Avagc. However, if avo take the lowest basic wage for waterside Avorkers in New Zealand avo find that the judgment" of the court has pronounced a reduction .of twopence per hour on the 1921 basic rate._ Last May the court made a reduction by general order of 5s per Avcck or l{d per hour for the Avorkers paid on the hourly basis. During the P-'ist month the Arbitration Court has

indicated a further reduction of 3g per week, or ;]d per hour on the present Avages scale. These two reductions have been imposed by the court, and 1 surely the public does not consider it j fair that the waterside Avorkers should I suffer a greater reduction in wages Ilian other Avorkers in Ncav Zealand; ! particularly so when it has been amply demonstrated to tbe court during the hearing of the waterside Avorkers’ dispute that, taking the Avhole of New Zealand, the Avagc earned, on the 1921 basic rate, during ordinary working hours Avas less than £2 15s’per week, and taking all wages earned during overtime hours .and at special work, the average Avage Avas loss than £3 7s 6d per week. “The court declared in May last that the living Ayage Avas £3 18s 9d per Aveek. During the past month the proposed reduction by general order is 3s per week. This would reduce the basic wage to £3 15s 9d per Aveek. The basic Avage is based on the ordinary hours worked. Therefore, the court, on its own showing, should have increased the Avage of the Avaterside Avorkers to at least. £3 15s 9d, on the basis of the amount earned during ordinary working hours. Instead of that, hoAvever, the court has reduced the lowest basic rate by 2d per hour, and brought down the basic wage at the higher paid ports to that level. This simple and easy method was’ termed by the, court to be ‘removing anomalies.’ It has resulted in subjecting the Avorkers in sonic ports to a reduction, on the 1921 basic rate, of 5d per hour, or 3s 4:1 j ter day of eight, hours. For special cargoes in bulk, 5d per hour; special cargoes in bags, 4d per hour ; handling oils, 5d per hour; in short, a general all-round reduction of 3s 4d per day of eight hours., and if the overlime rates to 10 p.m. are taken into consideration, the reductions per day will, as a matter of course, bo increased accordingly. “I may here give a few specific instances of the actual reductions at some of the ports. At Auckland, a freezer worker of board ship, working a twelve-hour day, will suffer the following reductions under the sentence of the court (these reductions arc given ou the 1921 basic rate); —1921, .rate, ordinary time, 3s per hour; overtime to 10 p.m., 4s 4d per hour; new rate, ordinary time, 2s 6d .per hour; overtime, 3s 7d per hour. Reductions 6d per hour for the eight hours ordinary' time, 4s; and 9d per hour for four hours overtime, 3s. In addition,, lie loses 6d per day ‘jersey money,’ making a. total reduction in wages for one day of 7s 6d ; or, if he worked a full Avcck of sixty hours Avhieli is frequently done on a big loading, the re- ( duction Avould amount to £l 17s 6(1. “If avo lake a man working frozen meat in a lighter at Wanganui, the 1921 ordinary rate was 2s 8d per hour, 1 overtime 4s per hour ; new rate, 3s 2d ordinary time, overtime rate. 3s 3d. Such Avorkers av ill receive the follow- 1 ing actual reductions; 4s for eight 1 hours ordinary time, 3s for four hours overtime, and in addition 2s 8d per dav for ‘tra veiling! ime,’ a total of 9s’Bfl per day. or for a. full- week of five days £2 8s 4d. In addition, 'these workers were provided Avith two meals under the last industrial ■ agreement; under the present sentence only one meal is provided. The reduction for workers employed in a similar capacity at Napier amounts to 6s Od per dav. 1

‘‘At Crcymouth and Westport, the following reductions will apply to coat workers. These workers arc employed in shifts, and the reductions provided in the scale arc as follow:—1921 rate; Ordinary rate, 2s lOd per hour; 1922 rate, 2s* 9d; reduction on the ordinary rate, Id per hour. But it is in tho overtime hours that these workers have been hit hardest, and it must he understood that at these two ports three shifts are worked, so that the reduction made on the working hours ■between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. means a direct lowering of the standard of living. The following reductions have been decided by the court:—l92l rate, overtime from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., 3s 7d per hour; new rate, 2s 9d, reduction, lOd per hour, or 3s 4d for tour hours. Bub it is from 10 p.m, to 7 a.m. that (he. court has given those men the knock-out blow. The 1921 rate provided for 4s 7d per hour; the new rate is 2s 9d .per hour; reduction, Is lOd per hour. To put it another way, a worker, employed at Qreymouth or Westport for eight hours on the back shift- suffers a wage reduction of 14s 8d per shift; yet wo have been told by the court that the overtime. rates have been increased. May T point out that (luring tin* 1920 agreement no ■increase wW? granted on the ordinary . rate lor men employed at coal work at Greyrn'onth and Westport, Despite that

fact, however, the court thus reduced the ordinary time rates of these work-) ers. Besides the foregoing reductions, men employed at Westport and Greymouth have been subjected to a reduction on the basic rate of 5d per hour. The average wage at Westport for tiie year 1921 on all time worked I was less than £3 15s per week. This | | was placed before the court, and there . J Avas no question as to its correctness. •It Avns admilted by both sides (o be accurate. Yet in the face of Unit average wage, these unfortunate men have been subjected to the unprecedented wage reduction, on the 1921 rate of 5d per hour on the general cargo rate, lOd per hour on the coal rate, ordinary overtime, and Is lOd per hour on special overtime. This is really a sentence of starvation to these waterside workers and their dependents.

“Regarding the special overtime after 10 p.m., it is a Avell-knoAvn fact that Avork on the waterfront lias ceased at 10 p.m. for a__ number of years past, and the court must have known from the evidence that an increase in the overtime rate after 10 p.m, made no appreciable difference whatever in the Avages of the waterside Avorkers. In a fcAv ports Avhcre the men did start at 7 a.in. the court Avas most careful to make provision for the wages for the hour between 7 and 8 a.m. to be paid at the ordinary overtime rates instead of the double ordinary rates as provided in previous agreements. In oilier AA-ords, the court has given a reduction of Is 5d per hour to men Avho work between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. This reduction is certainly a great encouragement for the men to start at 7 o'clock.

CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT “Tlic court evidently was not satis fied with making a big reduction ii the wages of the waterside workers [for it lias followed up these reduction by _ making conditions of employmen which will affect the actual wages o many of the waterside workers equal!; as much as the reductions a 1 read, quoted. “The rates of pay for special cm goes have been reduced, and many o the special cargoes paid for in the las agreement have been omitted altogclii or. Take for instance foreign coal; ai increase .of 6d per hour over the or diinary coal rate was paid for a I Welsh coal handled in New Zealam during the past 18 months. The sam rate applied to Port Kerahla coal am other foreign coals coining to New Zea land. The new Judgment has declare* that all this foreign coal must In worked at the ordinary coal rates “Coming to Saturday afternoon work the workers have been subjected to ; reduction of 9d per hour on the 192: basic rate, and for some classes o cargo this reduction is much greater and in some cases it amounts to a much as Is lOd per hour. “For work done on Sundays, Christ mas Day and Good Friday, there -hai --been a reduction from double overturn rates to double ordinary rates. Tin reduction on the 1921 rate for say, ; freezer worker at Auckland wouk amount to 3s 8d per hour, or £1 9s 4( for eight hours’ work. Similar reductions could be proved hi other classes of work right throughout New Zealand. The double overtime rate foi Sunday work has .applied on the water front since 1912, and, up to the present time, has never even been quos tioned by the employers. SAFETY “The question of safely to the men is one which deserves the most serious comment. For a number of years past the waterside workers have aimed te protect life and limb of the members of the unions. The court has seen /it to throw all Hie essential precaution# , contained in the last agreement to the winds, and iii one or two clauses has allowed the employers, if they so desire. to actually introduce methods of work on the waterfront of New Zealand which are absolutely unsafe, and have not been allowed in New Zealand previously) and are not allowed at the present time in any other part of the world. “In this instance, I refer particularly In hatchracn. , It is competent for the employers under the now industrial sentence to work a vessel without employing a batchrnan. That is, of course, if the 'men down below are sufficiently careless of their existence on this planet as to work for them under such conditions.

NUMBER OF MEN IN GANGS “Despite the fact (hat the court had already given a decision, that the number ot men to a meat gang should be 12 actually stowing in the hold, and despite the fact that the employers’ representative stated at the Wellington sitting of the court that he agreed that there should bo 12 men actually stowing frozen meat in the bold besides the two men- Avorking on stages, the decision of the court lias , been that.* the number of men stowing in the hold ' slig.ll be 10, and the gang of 12 shall include the two men suspended: on stages. In the new award the court has thrown to the ‘wind its previous decision, and has also definitely ignpred the statement made by Captain Whyte, of Auckland, the employers’ export, who stated that there should be 12 men stowing in the hold. |

OVERTIME WORK “The court, seemingly, did not think the employers’ Claims were sufficiently drastic in connection with--the overtime work. In the first place, it reduced the oA-ertimc rate for men Avorking between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. from double ordinary time to ordinary overtime,. Tbe employers’ claims suggested that this hour be paijj for at the double ordinary time, rate. Thus, the Avaterside Avorkers will have a reduction on the 1921 rate for this hour of Is sd, although such reduction Avas not asked for by the employers. “Several clauses relating to overtime work provided by tbe judgment of the court have been made more harsh than those proposed in the employers’ claims. In short, the comb lias conceded the whole of _ the employers’ claims regarding overtime work, as it lias done in other conditions of employment, and where it could do so it has made them a little more harsh for some reason best knoAvn to itself.

PREFERENCE “I now come to the preference clause and this clause is indeed one which strikes at the very existence of the 'Waterside Workers’ Unions of _ New Zealand. In the first place it is, as the judge of the court has stated m his memorandum to the award—the pre- 1 ferenco clause has certain modifications -—and the modifications are that it makes it impossible for the unions to . exist and retain preference on the sub- j scription fees allowed by the court. ) “Many of the waterside unions em-' ploy a caretaker to look after their "waiting-rooms. This man _ has to be paid a living wage, and this wage cannot come from any other source except from the union fees. In a port where 'there* are five or six hundred men it is absolutely essential for the health of the workers that a caretaker should he employed. In addition to this there are the general expenses of the unions, payment of officers, etc. f "The waterside workers have always been prepared fo pay a, reasonable contribution to meet these financial obligations, and have done so for years j

without a single objection. The court, however, has given these unions a death blow, for it has definitely stated in the preference clause that the amount payable per annum shall not exceed £1 or 4|d per week, and under tills clause a man may work one month on the waterfront without becoming a member of the union. This .means, of course, that the unions cannot carry on; they must cither forego their preference clause or dissolve the unions.

TERM OF AWARD “The original claims of (lie employers asked that the award expire in March, 1923; the counter claims of the waterside workers asked that the award expire in December, 1922. Later on the employers asked that the term of. the award be the same as that of the seamen’s award—up to October, 1923. The unions on the other hand asked that the award expire on December 31st, 1923. The court, however, took no notice of either the claims or the counter-proposals and made the award expire on April 30th, 1924, a date that neither of the parties to the dispute asked for. “I cannot conclude this matter without referring to the memorandum of the court, particularly to the basis on which the basic wage was arrived at. The memorandum stated that unskilled workers wages have been supplemented by 25 per cent,, in order that the waterside workers may earn a living wage.

uunng me proceedings connected b with this dispute before the court, the basis for fixing the wages for waterside workers as decided by His Honour Mr Justice Higgins, was placed before the court, and also that decided by . Lord Shaw, who fixed the wages basis , for the waterside workers of Great Britain. At one stage of the proceed- ’ mgs IHs Honour, Justice Frazer, made a statement that the court would I adopt the Australian basis, but for r some reason, best known to the court. r this basis was dropped overboard, and a -purely supposititious basis has taken , its place. Before any basis could be • fixed it was absolutely necessary to ■, establish the average number of hours worked by waterside workers regularly seeking work on the waterfront. TSds , was proved to be from 23 to 30 hours at. the larger ports', and from 24 to 28 in the smaller ports. The Austra. , lias basis was fixed on a 30 hour week at the larger ports and a 28 and 29 hour week at the smaller ports. But the court knew that by this method they could not reduce the waegs <?f the New Zealand waterside workers; in fact, it would be imperative to increase them; and probably for that reason the number of hours worked per week as a basis was cast aside. The result is that whereas the waterside workers of Aus- , tralia are paid from 2s 9d to 3s per hour as the ; basic rate, their fellow workers in New Zealand are paid 2s 2d per hour, or 7d per hour less. “In giving his judgment in 1914, His Honour Justice Higgins stated that in 1900 the wages of waterside workers throughout Australia were Is per hour ; in New Zealand at that- time the wages of waterside workers were Is 3d per hour. Since; 1900 the wages of waterside workers of Australia have increased from 175 to 200 per cent., while the wages'of the. waterside workers of New Zealand have increased on the 1921 rate by 75 per cent. This gives a splendid indication to the workers of New Zealand of the treatmentmeted out to them by The ship owner, for while they are prepared to' pay 2s 9d to the Australian waterside workers, the.- same' employers demand that the New Zealand workers perform the same class of; work for 2s 2d per hour.', “The remarks -of-the court regarding preference arc absolutely undeserved and uncalled , for. It has stated that by the past conduct of the unions they have not, earned the right to preference. The employers’ representative, in his opening address to the court, made a, similar statement; but I would point out to the court that since 1915 there 1 has not been.one recorded breach of agreement against the waterside workers of New Zealand, and although both tiie Labour Department and the Crown took’three cases before the court, they failed in' each instance to get a conviction against the men. “The waterside workers contend that before the Arbitration Court should cast such a reflection on; the waterside wo”kers of New Zealand it, should have some authority that breaches of agreement had been committed ' and the same should have been proved by some court of competent jurisdiction. I believe there is an old English maxim which states that a person is innocent until proved guilty, and until the waterside workers have been found guilty of.committing Breaches of agreement, we are of the opinion that the remarks made by the court arc, to say i the least, uncalled for. i “The Arbitration Court could only base these remarks made in the me- 1 morandum on the statement made by ; the employers’ representatives alleging ; that these offences were committed, i The representative of the waterside i workers and their witnesses were 1 equally emphatic that the waterside { workers had not committed any breach j of agreement, and it Is now submitted i that the test is; Did the Labour De- v partment or the Crown prove at any f time during the currency of any agree- € ment since 1912 that a -breach of f agreement took plado on any of the t waterfronts of New Zealand? The j records prove that the, law of this % country failed to prove any such j breach, and that should satisfy the Ar- t bitration Court. t

j WAGES LOSS - “It is impossible to estimate with any degree oi accuracy the total wages loss, which the sentence of the; court lias imposed on the waterside workers, as almost, every clause where wages are concerned imposes a reduction. However, estimating on a very conservative basis, the total wages los.? r to waterside workers,.throughout New Zealantl is from £230,0Q0t0 £270,00P annually ; this is, indeed, a very handsome present .to the shipping trusts. “Since 1908 the waterside workers have declined to have their disputes settled before the court on the grounds that they had never received justice ■when they had applied to- the court previously. From 1912 to 1922 the waterside workers made some progress and improved their standard of living generally, and now, by a stroke of the pen the Arbitration Court has driven the waterside workers back to the conditions which operated in 1901, despite the fact that all the'.main conditions in the last agreement wore agreed upon by a conference of experts in 1917. In reply to the claims sent to the employers in 1920, a letter was received from the late Mr Bullock, the shipowners’ representative, in which practically all the provisions contained in the last agreement were voluntarily conceded. A copy of this letter was handed to the court during the proceedings but it seems that the cot)it took uo notice wMtever of a letter from the gentleman who represented the' iliolo of the employers of waterfront labour. “The daily Press has often stated that the men employed ou the waterfront and other worker's throughout New Zealand should have their disputes settled by the machinery provided by the legislation of this country— I,he Arbitration Court—and ii has also Mated that the public would at any time see to it that no workers should

suffer an injustice. The waterside workers have had their wages and conditions adjusted by that legislative , machinery, and the foregoing should certainly convince anybody that justice has not been meted out to the waterside workers in the recent _ judg-, ment of the court. The question is* now asked: Will the public and the Press demand that the men who are ' employed to perform the work con- . neoted with this important branch of the transport industry shall bo given ,', such wages and working conditions as will allow them and their dependents to maintain a fair standard, of living?

“At (he present lime the award is being printed, and will be, submitted to the whole of the waterside workers for their approval or otherwise, as no self-respecting labour official could honestly advise men to accept wages and conditions of-employment "which, actually means semi-starvation to them ami their dependents. Therefore, it, is only fair to ask the men who will, have to ' work under the judgment of the court ,to say, after they have fully considered * the wages and conditions of employment, to express their opinion on that judgment and on the court itself.” /