WHARF BONUS

New Zealand Herald, Volume 82, Issue 25300, 6 September 1945, Page 6

WHARF BONUS

NON-UNIONISTS' CLAIM 1 SHARE IN DISTRIBUTION j (S.R.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday , Conditions on the waterfront, with ( particular reference to Auckland, and , differences which have developed be- , tween union and non-union waterside , workers over the payment of a profit of £660.000 made during the past five years under a bonus system operated by the Waterfront Control Commission, came under lengthy discussion in I the House of Representatives today. The subject of waterside workers arose when Mr D. W. Coleman (Government—Gisborne), as chairman of the Labour Bills Committee, was reporting to the House the recommendations of the committee on a petition by William P. Storey and 64 others which had been presented 113' Mr li. M. Algie (Opposition—Remuera). The petition prayed for the payment of bonuses to non-unionist waterside workers and the committee recommended that the Government should give favourable consideration to this. Point ol Order Raised Other portions of the petition were that the application of the term "sea-1 gull" to non-unionist workers shouldi be made illegal, that shelters should be erected on the waterfront for the use of non-unionist workers, and that there should be a better system for the employment of labour. The committee had no recommendation to make on these requests. When the committer's report had been presented, Mr F. Hackett (Government—Grey Lynn) rose to a point of order and said that the committee's recommendation had been merely for consideration by the Government and not for favourable consideration. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr as a member of the committee, replied that it had been suggested that, although the original suggestion of the committee had been to forward this clause in the petition for consideration, he had not been in favour of this course and it had been changed to favourable consideration. Mr Algie said that the petitioners said that as non-unionists who had contributed to the making of profits they were entitled to some share in their distribution. He hoped the Government, when it considered the recommendations, would be as generous as the committee had been. £660,000 in Five Years Mr W. J. Poison (Opposition—Stratford) said the Waterfront Controller, Mr James Roberts, had told the committee that under the commission's control profits represented £660.000 in the past five years. Mr Poison did not complain of the system or the profits. It was the question of distribution. There were about 2000 members of the Waterside Workers' Union in Auckland, but sometimes as many as 5000 men had been required on the Auckland wharves simultaneously. Those who assisted on the wharves at times of stress where members of the union could not cope with the work were non-unionists, largely because the union's membership was limited. Mr Poison continued that Mr Roberts had told the committee that the distribution of profits in the form of a bonus to non-unionists was impracticable. although it was not ineqi.itable. But the fact was that for 18 months non-unionists were included in the distribution and their petition for that system to continue had merit. * Reasons Against Inclusion Mr Hackett said that the watersiders would not object to sharing the bonuses with what might be termed legitimate non-unionists—those who depended on the waterfront for a living. The sum of £'660,000 in profits sounded impressive, but it actually represented only about £2O man yearly over five years for some 700u unionists in ports controlled by the Waterfront Commission. The impracticability of including nonunionists in the bonuses was illustrated by the fact that about 25.000 of them had worked on the Auckland waterfront during the war years, continued Mi Hackett. Most of them had other em- ' ployment and worked on the wharf only when penalty rates were beinjj 1 paid. The membership of the Auckland 1 Waterside Workers' Union, normaHv about 1100, had been increased to 200 C 1 during the war, but that number wa? probably too_ great for peacetime and members retiring on account of age ; probably would not be replaced. Had there been onlv about 100 "sea--1 gulls," as in normal times, the union would gladly have included them in the bonus distribution, but with n numbei at 25.000 it was impracticable to do so, Mr Holland's View Mr Holland said the question involved the rights of workers as a whole. The Waterfront Commission had introduced what might be called "incentive paypayment by results, which was the National Party's policy. (Government laughter.) The "seagulls," who were locked out of the union, were permitted to take only crumbs from the union's table, which meant that certain people had a monopoly. Mr Coleman said that some time age a bonus was paid to all who worked or ships, but this was later discontinued by the Waterfront Control Commissior , who decided to pay a bonus to sub- [ contractors, that was, members of a I union. "Seagulls" went on to the ( wharves for their own purposes, beinc . attracted by the big monev to be ' t earned during the week-ends and he did not blame them. They did not earr thoir living on the wharves. Mr Coleman concluded that evidence given by Mr Roberts proved that pay " ment or the bonus to "seagulls" was ' absolutely impracticable because of the » enormous amount of clerical work in- - volved. s The committee's report was ndopted COUNCILLOR RESIGNS (0.C.) WHANGAREI. Wednesday The resignation of Mr D. L. Ross i from the Whangarei Borough Council was received by the council last night. The council decided to defer the filling of the vacancy until the next meeting. This is the third vacancy which has occurred on the council si- e the elections.