ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18516, 29 March 1922, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

WATERSIDE WORKERS* CASE. STOP-WORK MEETINGS AND OVERTIME. (Fu Uhited Puss Asaoounoif.) WELLINGTON, March 28. The hearing of the Waterside Workers’ dispute was continued before the Arbitration Court to day. Mr Justice Fraser presided, Mr W. Scott being the assessor for the employers and Mr M. J. Riordan the assessor for the employees. Mr W. G. Smith appeared for tne employers and Mr J. Roberta (secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Federation), and Mr J. Bruce (secretary of the local union) for the employees. Mr Smith, before continuing his case, referred to the question of procedure that had been discussed on the previous day, and intimated that in view of the shortness of time for the sitting in Wellington the employers proposed to go on with their case in the ordinary way. His Honor pointed out that that was the best course. After Mr Roberts had presented his case the employers would have the right to reply. In a sense they would have equal opportunity with Mr Roberts of having the last word. At the finish the court would not be influenced by any little hitch in the proceedings of the hearing. Mt Smith then continued hie examination. The first witness was Captain Walton, wharf superintendent for the Union Company. Ihe cessation of overtime at 10 p.m., witness stated, was the cause of much inconvenience, especially in the matter of increased working costs. The principle of stop-work meetings had a very bad moral effect. Everyone connected with stocking or warehousing goods on the wharf was obliged to stand idly by till the men resumed. One official stop-work meeting was held per month, but the union held meetings whenever it deemed it necessary, whether the employers agreed to it or not. An unofficial meeting of the union had been held only a few days ago. About half the men appeared to be inside the hall, and the rest were outside. The only other body that held stop-work meetings was the Seamen’s Union, which had secured the right because of tne precedent obtained by the waterside workers. Mr Roberts cross-examined witness concerning the statement he had made on the' previous day (hat coal handling nad been reduced from 15 to 10 tons per gang per hour. “You have made the accusation,’’ said Mr Roberts, “that the handling of coal was restricted by a resolution by the union.” Witness said he had good indications of it Mr Roberts maintained that it was merely opinion. He had no evidence of f it. Witness: The union takes good care of that. Captain Walton said he had stated quite clearly that the quantity of coal and cargo handled was regulated, presumably by a resolution by the union. He would bring evidence to prove that members of the union themselves had testified to that. Stop-work meetings, he continued in answer to questions, usually occupied the whole rooming, and the time loet was never made up. In rqgard to work after ordinary hours, he expressed the opinion that if the men were left to themselves they would work overtime. Mr Robert?: Who stops them ? Witness: In my opinion the union stops them. Mr Roberts: You have no evidence to prove that. _ x , Witness said the union had had it so long pumped, into them that they were not to work at night that it was a job to get them to work overtime at all, Mr Roberts asked whether Mr Bruce had not joined with the employers in asking the men to work after 10 p.m. “You say that what Mr Bruce says to the men is quite different from what ho tells others?” he asked. Witness replied that Mr Bruce might say different things under different ciroum-. stances, “f?an you bring evidence to show that Mr Bruce acts dishonestly?”—No. But you make the inference before the court and the press that he is dishonest in his methods ?—No; I would say that what he says to the men publicly, and what he says to them privately are two different things. How do you know?—Oh, I leave that to you, sir. You will understand it. Mr Roberts (after further passages) : You accuse mo of acting differently to tne men privately than I do in public? Witness: What I suggest is that what Mr Roberts, as an official of the union, would say in public at our request is very probably different from what he would say to tne executive of the union in private. Further onoss-oxamined, witness stated that Mt Bruoe had on one occasion threatened to hold a ship up pending the settlement of some point in dispute. -He could not recollect the time or date, nor whether anyone else had been present. Mr Roberts: Yet you remember what Mr Bruce said? It is strange you recollect about these threats. In reply to Mr Smith, witness said that there were from 1400 to 1700 men working generally on the wharf at the present time. He did not know how many were required for the whole of the wnarves. It would not be 2000 in normal times. The cross-examination was continued.