ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18515, 28 March 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

WATERSIDE WORKERS’ DISPUTE. THE EMPLOYERS’ CASE. (Pee United Pbess Association.) WELLINGTON, March 27 . For the first time since 1908 the Arbitration Court is hearing a dispute dealing with work on the waterfront. The proceedings were initiated by the employers, and the union filed counter-claims. The union asks for ah increase of Id per hour in the rates of pay, which are now 2s 4d ordinary time, 3s 4d per hour overtime up to 10 p.m., 4s per Lour overtime from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. The employers ask that the rates be Is 7d ordinary, 2s 4£d overtime. They also desire to abolish stopwork meetings, and suggest special provisions against go-slow tactics and stopwork for tunerals. In opening tho case for the employers Mr W. G. bmith described the dispute as a very important one. Waterside work, he said, was regarded as a key to industry, tiie basio rate oj pay for which materially affected the rates in Other industries. As a further indication of. its importance Mr bmith mentioned that the amount paid in New Zealand for waterside labour was approximately ±11,200,000 per annum. Mr Smith followed with a brief statement in relation to tha various agreements which had been made between the various employers and waterside workers’ unions since the dispute was before the court in 1908. Prior to the end of December, 1911, the waterside employees had been working under separate awards or industrial agreements, and there had been little or no friction. The basio wage at the main ports was at that time Is 3d per hour ordinary time {8 a.m. to 5 p.m.), and 2s per hour from fa p.m. to 8 p.m. Mr Smith recalled the first negotiations wjth the defunct Federation oi Labour; also the 1913 strike and subsequent negotiations with the Waterside Workers’ Federation. After quoting the present rates of wages Mr Smith said; “It will thus be seen the increase in the basio wage since the commencement of the war in 1914 is lid per hour lor ordinary time or 64.7 per cent., is 3d per hour on overtime to 10 p.m. or 57.5 per cent., and is 9d per hour on overtime from 10 p.m, to 7 a.m. or 77.7 per cent. The actual increase in the earnings ‘of the men is, however, much greater than the per centage mentioned as the onerous working conditions which tho employers were forced to grant during the war period if they were to keep the ships going in the interests of tho country have greatly increased tho men’s earnings, as so many payments have to be made for which no return is actually given in shape of work. This is easily seep from the records of the Central Pay Office at Wellington which show that up to the end of its last financial year in August last the increase in the earnings of the men as compared with the pre-war earnings in July, 1914, has been 71 per cent.” Mr Smith quoted the following extract from the annual report of the Labour Department for 1921:-. “During tho year ended August 4, 1920, 968 waterside workers in Wellington earned an average of 2s 6id per hour or £4 17s lOd per week for an average of 38.8 hours per week. During the year ended August 3, 1921, an average of 1423 men earned an average of £.4 19s 8d per week.” As the cost of living (three food groups) had fallen about 31 per cent, from the highest point, it was obvious, stated Mr Smith, that on that ground alone the basio wage should now be substantially reduced, and the employers proposed to grant unskilled workers’ rate (Is 7d plus bonus of 3|d), though even on tho basis of the cost-of-living figures that. rate was really too high at the present time. As to waterside labour being unskilled, he did not think there could be any real dispute,- but evidence would be called on the subject. Mr Justice Higgins, in the Australian waterside workers’ case, bad laid it down that wharf labourers clearly belonged to the category of unskilled labourers. That judgment had practical support iu New Zealand, where, during the 1913 strike, the men who came from the country to work the ships had no experience or knowledge of waterside work, but nevertheless they carried it on very successfully and maintained an excellent output. There was no “go slow” as far as those loyalists were concerned. Another proof was that every Torn, Dick, and Harry who was employed owing to slackness in his own trade went down to the wharf for temporary employment, and in most cases got on very weiil with the work. “I do not propose to say mtich in regard to the cost of living,” continued Mr Smith, “as the court has much better means of ascertaining the real figures than anyone who, like myself, has to depend entirely upon the published figures of the Government Statistician. The other side will no doubt argue that the figures should not be taken on the three food groups alone, but that rent, fuel, and lighting should be included. They, however, overlook the fact that the inclusion of these items might quite possibly reduce instead of increase the percentage in the cost of living, as such comparatively small proportions of income are spent on these items compared with the proportion spent on food. I would, however. like to say something in reference to the inadvisability, especially in a time of depression like the present, of fixing the wages solely on the basis of the cost of living. We have very opposite examples of this in the present state of affairs ih Australia, where the court has followed the cost-of-living niie very closely, with the result that many industries have been compelled to close down, and many thousands of 'workers have been thrown out of employment in consequence. In fact, the position has become so acute that the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth summoned a general! conference of employers and workers with a view to arranging such reduction in wages, by mutual agreement, if possible, as will enable many industries now closed to restart. This conference has, unfortunately, proved abortive, as tho proposals put forward and pressed by the workers were for the entire socialisation of industry a proposition which the em pfoyers were, of course, not prepared to discuss. The position is almost, if not quite, ns bad in New Zealand, where there is a largo number of unemployed, and many employers are working at a loss and are unable to give their shareholders any return for their capital. The Union Company, for the first time in 30 vears, has been obliged to pass its dividend.*’ After suggesting that tho published figures in regard to the cost of living, which were and must necessarily be based on fixed regimen, were, in fact, too high, Mr Smith reiterated that, apart altogether from that, the cost of living was not a proper standard to follow in fixing wages at a time of depression. Wages were a share in the prosperity of an industry, and they would be liigh or low in accordance with tho success or failure of that industry. Beyond that it was not really practicable to go, and it was high time that the fixing of wages by higher mathematics' shoufd cease, and that it should be clearly understood that there was no bottomless purse out of which employers could pay wages which the financial state of the industry would not allow. In time of prosperity and profits wages rose bv reason of the law of supply or demand. Labour was usually scarce in such times, and that scarcity, together with the fact that prosperity had provided the wherewithal to pay an increased wage, caused wages to rise, but when prosperity and profits gave way to depression or loss, -rages must fall, as the wherewithal to pay high wages was absent. So far as the shipping industry was concerned, most or the shipping companies were now running at a loss, and unless income and expenditure could at least be balanced by a reduction in the working costs then more and still more ships must be laid up, with a resulting large increase in unemployment. Figures would be supplied for the court’s confidential information, showing the results of the trading of various ships. Freights had fallen all round, and in some trades to a more fraction of what they were a couple of years ago, and were likely to fall still further owing to keen competition. American and Canadian Government ships, and also Japanese and other tonnage, whose working costs had been ruthlessly reduced to a point much below those of New Zealand ships. There is a general idea, said Mr Smith, that the New Zealand shipping employers have a big measure of protection; but this is not so. There is certainly some measure of protection in the Now Zealand coastal trade, owing to the operation of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act, but the great bulk of the trade of the Union Company, which employs 55 per cent of the waterside labour, is now an oversea proportion, being 75 per cent. The company has to compete in the world’s markets against large numbers of more cheaply run ships of all nationalities, which are hungrily seeking employment wherever any is to be found. That employers cannot continue indefinitely to run their business at a loss is obvious, and this position is gradually being realised by the workers themselves, as only a few weeks ago the Yorke Peninsula Miners’ Association in South Australia made an offer to the directors of the Moonta Conner Mining Oom-

pany to accept a redaction of 18 per cent. in wages so as to enable operations to be continued instead of the mines being dosed down. But even this did not sate the position. Mr Smith quoted other instances where workers had accepted a reduction in wages. In asking for a reduction in the Wages of seamen, Mr Smith, for the companies, dfebr* attention to the fact that the demands of the men were made during the currency of the war, when every ship was urgently needed, and an acute shortage of labour existed. These were the only reasons why such excessively high rates of wages were given; in fact, the high rates of pay wore obtained from the employers by force majeure and under duress, and not because the latter considered the rates reasonable. Mr Smith said the shipping industry was one in which the interests of the general public, and particularly of the primary producers, must be considered by the court to a greater extent probably than in any other industry, for which the court fixed rates of wages and conditions of employment. The position of the primary producers had no doubt been fully laid before the court in other cases. The seriousness of the situation, which had arisen owing to tho world-wide slump in the, prices Of our primary products, was so widely known that any further comment at that juncture was unnecessary. It would however, •be apparent that, anything that could be done in the direction of reducing charges on primary products should be effected in the interests of the community as a whole. That could not be done unless the working costs of ships, which were now about two and a third times higher than before the war, were reduced. . ' Speaking of the reduction in the efficiency of work performed, as compared with tbs pre-war period, figures showed that- the whole of the wages had increased, Mid efficiency had decreased. He _ referred to the go-slow policy, which he, said was meet pernicious, was attended with serious results, and injured the public and the employers. He asked the court to substitute a “no discrimination” clause, for the present preference clause, one reason, being that tne preference clause had been greatly abused by the waterside workers’ union*, especially of late years. At the present time the Wellington Union demanded payment in advance of the sum, of 50s before a man was allowed to- join a union, apparently made up of _Ss entrance fee, 2St for a year’s subscription in advance, and 20s levy. The demand for a levy 'Wat clearly improper. Under the terms of thf existing preference clause a levy could not, in the ordinary acceptance of tne term, be classed as a contribution. ,Mr Smith urged the court to deprive the union of preference. Moderate men only belonged to the pnlon because under a preference clause!they bed, to. They did not attend ktop-work ones. The control of the union had thus passed into the hands of the a men of—-to put it mildly—very advanced views, who ran the union for the purpose atmdvancing their revolutionary theories - They made levies upon members which they knew to be illegal, and enforced payments by means of threats of exclusion from work, as had happened quite recently in connection with the Wellington Union. ■ After Mr Smith’s address evidence wfs called.