WHARF CONTROL

New Zealand Herald, Volume 81, Issue 24825, 23 February 1944, Page 6

WHARF CONTROL

COMMISSION'S STATUS

COURT DIRECTS CITATION (P.A.) WELLINGTON. Tuesday

Important aspects of waterfront working in Wellington were raised in the Arbitration Court to-day, when the adjourned proceedings between the New Zealand Waterside Employers' Association and the Wellington Foremen, Stevedores, Timekeepers, and • Permanent Hands' Union for a new award were resumed after an internal of some six months. After considerable preliminary discussion; the Court held that the Waterfront Control Commission, by virtue of its position as an employer of labour, could be cited as an original party to a dispute and as a. subsequent partv to an award. Appearing for the Waterfront Control Commission, Captain .11. E. Price, chairman referred to the commission s I order of November, 1942, taking over the control of the great majority ol foremen stevedores under the powers conferred on it bv the Waterfront Control Commission Emergency Regulations, 1940. He dealt with the extent ol those powers and said, rightly or wrongly, the commission felt it- had the authority to make orders over-riding any award under the I.C. and A. Act by virtue of ihe Peg!nations Act, .1939. The commission lelt that, provided it acted within the jurisdiction of those regulations, it. was entitled to prescribe conditions of employment for any of its servants. Nevertheless, it had not done so in the present case, because of the stage which the dispute bad reached, and also in order not to prejudice ihe right ot I he parties to go to the Court. His Honor, Mr. Justice Tyndall. said the question was whether the Court should make a new award in view of the very special powers of the commission. The exercise of dual jurisdiction was very undesirable, and there could be a waste of public money and everybody's time. Objecting to the making of an award, the general secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' union, Mr. 1. it. Hill, claimed that the watersiders were in the position of contractors under the present system, and should have the right to appoint their own foremen. His Honor said he could not accept that contention. The waterside workers were in the position of pieceworkers. After the Court had considered the whole question, His Honor said it appeared to him that the commission as a Dody corporate could bo either an original or subsequent party to an award. If it had been intended that the commission should be in the position of the Crown, the Court could see no reason for the provision made in clause 17 of the regulations. The Court directed the Waterside Employers' Association to cite the commission as a respondent, and adjourned the case until trio next sitting of the Court in Wellington. SHORTAGE OF LABOUR MEN GIVEN REST PERIOD An acute shortage of labour is being experienced on the Auckland waterfront, following the week's deadlock when no work was done. Some ships are only partly manned and there is at least one not work inn; at all because' there is no labour. The amount of work accumulated steadily during; the week's delay. I Another factor contributing to the I shortage of labour is that a large numI her of members of the Auckland Water- ! side Workers' Union are at present hav ; ing the five-day holiday provided for j by the Industrial Rest Period Regular i tlons. The men could not bo allowed the rest period at Christinas time and it | is now being taken in relays. The action I of the Waterfront Commission in giving the men the holiday at a time of labour shortage was criticised by employers : yesterday.