WATERSIDE WORK

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22262, 9 November 1935, Page 15

WATERSIDE WORK

NEW SOCIETY'S APPEAL REGISTRATION SOUGHT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UNION : ' • ' ' '• "'"••••. : v-■?: 1 f 1 COURT RESERVES DECISION An appeal against the refusal of the" registrar of industrial unions, Wellington, to register the Auckland Dock Wharf Workers' Society was heard by the Arbitration Court yesterday. Mr. Justice Page presided. The society was represented by Mr. Hall Skelton, and the Auckland-Water-side Workers' Union by Mr. J, Roberts, of Wellington. Mr. H. Campbell appeared to watch the interests of the Auckland Painters' Union, and Mr. E. H. Burbidge, the interests of the Amalgamated Engineering and Allied Trades Union.

Mr. Skelton said the position had arisen owing to the fact that the Auckland Waterside Workers' Upioti was a restricted union as far jitfembership was concerned. In addition to unionists there were a number of non-unionists, or "seagulls," who worked on the wharf. There were occasions on which all unionists were employed, and it was then that the "seagulls," and sometimes strangers as well, received work.

"Doors of Union Barred" The Auckland Dock Wharf Workers' Society had been joined by 78 "seagulls," to whom the doors of the union had been barred, said counsel. These men had been deprived of the privileges of unionism. They were all genuine workers, and in busy times their services were frequently required and they were a useful body to the Waterside Workers' Union. " But the position is unfair; because the 'seagulls' may start to do certain work, but they are replaced by unionists immediately the latter are released from another job," continued Mr. Skelton. "In order to place themselves in the same legal position as the Waterside Workers' Union, the 'seagulls' formed a society and made an application to the registrar to be registered as an .industrial union. "We say that on the law as it stands the registrar is bound to register this society. I think the registrar in refusing very properly suggested that in the circumstances it would be better to let the Court decide the question. Then both parties would have the satisfaction of knowing that it was the decision of' the Court." Evidence was given by seven witnesses to the effect that they had made applications for membership to the union, but had not received a reply. Submissions for Union J? . In addressing the Court in reply to the statements made on behalf of the society, Mr. Roberts supported the registrar's action in refusing to register the organisation. He-sujbmitted that there were a large number of men on the wharf who were victims of circumstances, and, who, in many cases, bore just as good a character as unionists. "But the union cannot carry all these men, and if the Arbitration Court thinks it can it is making a big mistake," said Mr. Roberts. \ He submitted that the society was needless and considered -that itß registration would create difficulties all over New Zealand. Further, he submitted that the Arbitration Court 'in 1924 had . itself introduced the principle 1 of. limitation of membership, that, the employers themselves had already decided the number of waterside workers that was sufficient for the efficient working of the, port, and that the men had to be substantially engaged in the industry to be eligible for union membership. He der nied that the men known as "seagulls were replaced by unionists immediately the latter were released from other work. Recently the- membership of the union had been increased by lltyxnen. ' His Honor said the Court would take time to consider its decision. . H

/ interpretations of award

applications to court

An application for an amendment to the New Zealand waterside workers, award and two requests for an interpretation of certain clauses in the award "were heard by the Arbitration Court, presided over by; Mr. Justice Page, yesterday. Mr. Bennett appeared before the Court on behalf of the employers, while the workers were represented by Mr. J. Roberts. The decision of the Court was reserved, in each case. The employers and the workers were in accord in asking for an amendment to the provisions of the award, relating to the employment of non-members of the union, by the addition of lowing clause to provide for the port of Onehunga:—"That whenever a vessel is being worked by non-union labour, and it is the intention of the employer to work overtime after 6 p.m., on such f . vessel, that in the event of there being sufficient union labour? available and willing to man the job, that such nonunion labour shall be discharged and replaced by union labour at 6 p.m. In the case of a vessel working the teahour to finish, the non-union labour shall continue till the job is finished, or till 6 p.m." The wording of the proposed clauses to be inserted in the award to cover Timaru and Oamaru regarding the replacement of non-union labour was slightly different. In the second case, the' Court heard a request for an interpretation of thc> clauses to the following purport:-—''As to whether the employer, when giving an order to work part of a meal hour, must state the time to which he requires the men to work during the meal hour." Secondly, "as to whether the employer, when giving an order to work a meal hour and time following ' the meal hour, must state to what time after the meal hour he requires the men tor work." As a result of a recent dispute at Bluff, the Court was asked to give an interpretation of the clause relating to the handling of guano. A ruling was desired as to whether men employed in railway trucks receiving Walpole Island guano were entitled to the special, rate of 9d or not, . s The workers considered they were entitled to 9d, as paid at Auckland. The employers, on the other hand, contended that the men on the trucks should be paid a;t the lower rate of 6d, as they were employed receiving a bagged cargo.