WATERFRONT DISPUTE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23599, 7 March 1940, Page 8

WATERFRONT DISPUTE

j Wartime necessity should preclude i disputes on the waterfront causing j delay in the loading and despatch i of ships. This paramount consideration has been ignored by the Auckland waterfront workers by their decision to refuse overtime until their claims for a new award are met. A serious aspect is that the men and their union have made no attempt at conciliation, preferring to take direct action. In peacetime this would be a breach of the working agreement, which states: "The essence of the award being | that work shall always proceed as jif no dispute had arisen, disputes ! or differences as they arise are to j be referred to the local committee." | In wartime the offence is aggrav--1 ated. No attempt has been made by the men to invoke the local disputes I committee nor has any official notice of their decision been given to the employers. Actually it is stated for the employers that they have offered to submit or discuss any scheme with a view to improving conditions and expediting the despatch of ships. It is clear, therefore, that whatever the merits or otherwise of the men's complaint, their arbitrary method of seeking redress stands condemned. Apart from the disputes committee, they could have had recourse to the local and national control boards. Beyond these is the recent promise by the deputy-Prime Minister to set up an emergency commission to deal with the prevailing unsatisfactory conditions. All these avenues of conciliation, discussion and settlement have been passed over by the men. Such irresponsibility in an industry affecting many other workers and industries, touching, the national welfare, and bound up in the war effort, cannot be tolerated. As Mr. Fraser said a month ago, "The present conditions cannot continue. We cannot afford to take risks with our seamen, our produce and our ships. Our existence as a nation is at stake." It is high time to back words with action.