RIVAL WHARF UNIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15549, 5 March 1914, Page 8

RIVAL WHARF UNIONS.

. ■ pig COAL AND CARGO WORKERS. NO RECOGNITION FROM ' EMPLOYERS. j"

DISPUTE BEFOEE COUNCIL.

REFERRED TO ARBITRATION.

.The adjourned dispute of the Auckland j Coal and Cargo Workers' Union was re'sumed before the Conciliation Commissioner (Mr. T. Harle Giles) yesterday, but as the employers refused to discuss the claims made, on the ground that they did not recognise the union, the dispute wa3 referred to the Arbitration Court. The assessors were—Messrs. A. B. J. Ir-ine H. R. J. Short, and Captain St. Clair I Whyte for the employers, and Messrs. 0 j Mcßrine, F. W. Webb, nid F. Stanley ; for the union. Mr. C. Orosvenor represented a number of the employers, while Messrs. R. F. Way and H. 6. Sheppard appeared for the union.

The union contains a number of exstrikers, who were refused admission to the new Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, and when the dispute first came before the Conciliation Commissioner, on February .3, it was adjourned for tho purpose of permitting the Coal and Cargo Workers' Union to file an application to join the new Waterside Workers' Imion as a party to the dispute.

The Conciliation Commissioner stated yesterday that the application to join the Waterside Union had been filed, but, unfortunately, the clerk of awards did not notify the Waterside Union that application had been made to join it. The result was that the union only became aware of the fact on Tuesday afternoon ; when he (Mr. Giles) showed Mr. G.' Wood, president of the new union, a copy of the form of application to join it as a party. The Waterside Union could legally object to being cited, en tho ground of not having had proper notice :of beins; joined, but ho would ask it to ■ waive the objection in order not to protract the proceedings. Mr. Wood said the union would waive the objection, and the commissioner thereupon intimated that under 'section 38 of the Arbitration Act, he was prepared ] to join the Waterside Union as a party.

New' Union's Objections. Mr. Wood, on behalf of the Waterside I Workers' Unidn, recorded that body's objections to being attached as a party. One of these was that the union was already working under an agreement with tha employers engaged in carrying on work on the waterfront. The union would also like a ruling from the Arbitration Court as to the commissioner's right to make the I new union a party to the dispute under i clause 38 of the Arbitration Act.

The Commissioner said he was not disposed to make any exception to what'he had done in other disputes when an application was made under section 38. He had invariably joined either respondents, or unions, as the case might be. He had established a precedent, and whether it was right or not was for the Arbitration Court to determine. He was glad that Mr. Wood had challenged his action because it would give the Arbitration Court an opportunity of affirming whether he had acted properly. But, having joined other parties, he considered it would not be right on his part to differ in this case from what he had done in the past. On behalf of the employers, Mr. Grosvenor declined to consider the dispute, on the ground that the employers were working under an industrial agreement covering the class of work which applied to the present dispute. _ <.

Question of Numbers. Mr. Way asked if Mr. Grosvenor was speaking on behalf of those who had signed the agreement, or on behalf of those who had not signed it. Mr. Grosvenor replied. that there were 70 parties to the dispute, and of these he represented 48. In addition, he had received instructions from a large number of the other employers who had not signed ; the agreement not to proceed unless . ordered to do so by the Arbitration Court. Although not parties to the agreement, - these other employers were quite content to abide by its terms, and would only em- ■, ploy men who belonged to the union men- j tioned in the agreement. %?, Mr. Way contended that th-5 agreement: was signed by a minority of the employers —24 out of the 70 cited. 3|l

_ Mr. Short: A great many have never §| ) signed this agreement because they have never been asked to sign. "%;: New Union's Actions. P Mr. Way then made a statement, which I the commissioner recorded. "By the ex-'C' periences of the past few weeks, and ever f, since this trouble' has corne," said Mr. Way, "a big body of practical waterside workers, between &00 and 700, have been absolutely refused employment on the wharf, owing to the. fact that the present union has refused to admit these men to membership on any consideration whatever. A large number of these men are men who firmly believe in the principle of arbitration, and presented sworn affidavits to the union to that effect. In spite of that, however, they were refused membership of the union. The rules of the Auckland Waterside Workers' Union, clause 3, and the preference clause of the industrial agreement that has been filed are altogether contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, and the rules of the Court regarding admission of men to a union. Under these circumstances, a minority of the employers having entered into, an agreement with a union in terms already decided by the Court by virtue of section 3 of the '1911 Amendment Actit would be against the public: good and in excess of the jurisdiction of '.he Court wish the whole matter referred to the Arbitration Court, so that a proper, legally-drafted award may be obtained that will not preclude, by any of its provisions, nearly 700 qualified men from doing the work that they have been accustomed to do, some of them for the last 30 years." Statements to be Combated. Mr. Wood: I may state that my union will be prepared to combat most of these statements when the proper time arrivesCaptain Whyte said that, despite what Mr. Way had' said regarding a minority of employers having signed it, the agreement applied to at least 95 per cent, of the men engaged on the wharf. Mr. Giles stated that in view of the fact that the employers refused to discuss the claims, he had no alternative but to pass the dispute on to the Arbitration Court, On the motion of Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Short, a vote of thanks' was passed to the commissioner for his efforts to bring about a settlement.