WATERSIDE WORKERS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19309, 22 October 1924, Page 4

WATERSIDE WORKERS.

DOMINION AWARD PROCEEDINGS. TUB UNION’S WAG'S CLAIMS. The hearing of the dominion waterside workers’ dispute was continued before the Arbitration Court yesterday morning. His Honor, Air Justice Frazer, presided, and had associated with him Mr \V. Scott (employers’ assessor) and .Mr Hunter (union assessor). The employers wore represented by Air W. G. Smith! and the Waterside Workers’ Federation by Air J. Roberts. Air Roberts said that \ Captain Munro and ho had met with regard to the provision desired governing slop-work meetings, They had agreed to leave the mai ter over till they got back to Wellington, and both Captain Munro and ho considered that they would bo able to arrive at some better arrangement than the present. r I hey thought it would be boiler if it did not appear in the award at all. They had about five side agreements with the 'Wellington Harbour Beard at the present time. This was agreed to. PLEA FOR INCREASED WAGES. Addressing himself to the question of wages, Mr Roberts said the parties concerned had failed to come to an agreement on this important and most difficult matter. The first difficulty that presented itself was the number of weeks worked in the year. The man and his family had to live during the slack weeks of the veer, and he maintained that the industry should provide a living wage for 52 weeks in the year. The average wage should bo calculated cn the average number of hours worked per week, and not on the average number of weeks worked per year. In no other industry was the wage based on the number of weeks worked per rear. How much of the overtime and special pay was to be included in the average weekly wage? The federation had collected a great deal of information for the court on this point. It issued 2CCO wage books to waterside workers all over New Zealand and received back 130 filled in for a whole I?.-rnonthly period as well as many other returns. In November, 1923, 1400 books were sent out for a six-monthly period, and 120 complete returns were received back. Over 900 returns had been received from the four chief ports for the six-monthly period ending June last. He read a number of statistics of different groups of the smaller ports showing average hours worked, ranging upwards from 23 hours to 23 hours and average weekly earnings ranging from £2 19g 4d to £3 14s. In the four chief, ports during the six months ended June 50 last 575 men worked on an average 23.38 hours ordinary time, 6.32 hours’ overtime, and .33 hours’ special overtime and mealhours, total 30.03 ■hours, the lota! earnings for this being £3 16s 2d. The coal workers in Auckland, Wellington, and Lyttelton had averaged 29.42 hours per week and £3 I6s 3d wages. Coal work in the principal ports was becoming more casual because of the introduction of grabs andl because steamers were being converted into oil-burners. Neither at Port Chalmers nor Dunedin were there any great number of men who followed coal work exclusively. Should any or all of the overtime be included in the basic wage? The employers had always contended that the overtime was not true overtime because the greater- part of it was worked before the workers had completed a full eight hours’ ordinary time. Out. of every 100 hours of overtime. 77 were worked after eight hours’ work had been done. Nevertheless the employers asked that all the overtime bo included in the calculation of the weekly average wage. This inclusion of all wages earned had the effect of lowering the basic rate of the waterside worker’s wage. There were, he submitted, only two methods by which the hourly basic wage of the waterside worker could bo computed with accuracy; (1) The hourly rate to be based on the average number of hours per week ordinary time and to add to the number of hours worked per week the overtime hours worked before eight hours’ ordinary time was performed in one day; or (2) to include all the hours worked per week ordinary lime and overtime in Iho calculation, these hours to be treated as ordinary time, and base the hourly rate for general cargo ‘ (the taste wage) on the number of hours worked nor week. Tho present method or lack of method of calculating the wage was simply an incentive to the employer to encourage as much surplus labour around the waterfront as passible. i In ascertaining- the average mini,., ber of hours worked per week by the waterside workers ho contended that any worker who was following the occupation of a waterside worker for any period over four mouths should he included. It was sate (o assume that from 1921 ,to the present time the average number of hours worked in the four chief ports did not exceed 3-0 per week. Their claim of 2s 9d an hour would amount to a weekly wage of £4 2s 6d, which would purchase only the hare necessaries of life. In secondary ports, such as Wanganui, the average was about 28 weekly hours. In some of the smaller ports it was recognised that the average was too small to Ire used as a bisas of calculation for the weekly wages. Ho asserted that rhe average output- per gang in New Zealand was much higher than in Australia tthough freights were lower and quoted figures in support of his contention. He submitted that the employers could advance no reason for the great difference of 8d an hour in favour of tho Australian workers. He submitted he had proved that the industry could afford to nay the rates asked, and that the hourly rate claimed would allow only barely sufficient, for workers and their families to live upon. Tlie parties had agreed to overtime rate at time and a-half for the first four hours and double time thereafter, but the dispute was as to the rate on which the ‘overtime should be based. Tho Federation contended that the overtime should be paid on the rate according to the class of work on which they # wero engaged. The rate fixed for repair work in the last award did not. allow the men to eam the basic wage. The repair workers in Port. Chalmers should be brought up to the level of those iu AVellington and Auckland. In Australia the repair workers were paid 2s 6d an hour. They asked the court to place (lie repair workers on a bolter wage standard. Mr Roberts handed in a comparative statement of freight rates and wages rates in 1914, and 1924. He - calculated that m 1924 the shipowner received £12,500 more freight for 100,000 carcases than lie did in 1914. Wages for six gangs for three, days’ loading in Wellington in 1914 would be £243, and for the same work in 1924 £356 6s, or an increase of £ll3 8s in 1924. If the Federation’s claims wore conceded it, would cost l-5d of a penny per sheep or l-300th of a penny per lb for loading tho mul ton. The same arguments applied to the loading of batter and choose. The freights from A List, raj I a to England were the fame as from New Zealand, but the shipowners were aide to pay- much higher wages in Australia. He compared the amounts paid lo stevedores in Brisbane ami in Wellington. With a gang discharging benzine ho calculated that the profit for the stevedore at Wellington was £1 5s per hour or £lO a day. The profits were as much as the total wages of 10 men. Usually there were four gangs employed representing it daily profit, of £4O. llis Honor: I am afraid-you and I have mistaken our vacation. Air lloberis. Mr Roberts: I am afraid wo have. He said (he waterside workers hail discharged a ship themselves and it had worked out at a little better tha-i this. In Brisbane the stevedores’ profit would lie £23 17s 4d a.s coni pasted wil.li £4O in Wellingwin. Speaking of the cost of living Air Roberts disputed the Government Statistician's figures of the average family of 1.7 and stud if that were the average the population would lie decreasing. His Honor pointed out that trio 1.7 referred to children under 14. Continuing, Mr Roberts quoted figures to .sliow that there were 3.03 children to each married man. , His Honor questioned the .results «sotained by Mr Roberts’s calculations. Mr Roberts contended that the average worker’s family was nearer three than two. His Honor pointed out that Mr Roberts had left all single men out of consideration. Obviously there was something wrong with figure.-, that, added 5C0.C00 to the total population. Mr Roberts submitted an average waterside worker’s weekly household budget, showing rout. £1 3s, food £1 13s fid. cloth inp 9s 2d, lighting Is I'd. coal 3s. kindling and heavy wood 3s, miscellaneous £1 Os 9d ; total, £4 14s Id. For a four-roomed house the average rent was £1 ss, and for fiveroomed houses £1 IDs Bd. For six-roomed houses the rentals varied very much, some being as low as 15s, and others as high £2 lOs. As much as £2 a week had been paid for two rooms. Tile advertised rentals varied very much. Personally, he did net know of any method by which the actual cost of rent could Ire obtained. He onv. in a table to show that there was a big shortage of houses in New Zealand, amounting to about 26,000. He discussed in detail the items included under “roiscoilanoas" to show that, really necessary extra items would bring the weekly wags to £5 15s lid. His budget allowed for no holiday, and was based cn 52 weeks' work each year. The _ amount they claimed as necessary to maintain a family

of four was practically £2 per week more than was given by the last award. The amount required for clothing was at least £1 a week. MR ROBERTS’ FURTHER EVIDENCE. Mr Roberts then called Oscar M'Brine, president of tile Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union. Witness said that a statement made by Mr Smith in connection with the cost of handling cargoes at Auckland was not justified. If the wages on the whole had increased more than the freight charges had increased it- would then he quite logical for the wages to be reduced before the freight charges. Witness held that there was absolutely no case for a reduction of wages, and said that on the other hand there was a strong reason why wages shuld be increased although the freight charges had been reduced. Waterfront, work was perhaps the most dangerous of any occupation, and men w T hq followed that occupation ran constant risk of receiving injury. For 10 years past the Auckland Harbour Board had supplied a simple first-aid outfit in each shed, whicn was for the use of all waterside workers, but two or three months ago the board, without any reason, terminated the custom of dressing such injuries. Representatives of the union waited on the Harbour Board, and was informed that the reason was because of tho time spent in dressing tho injuries of waterside workers. There were 1422 members in the Auckland Waterside Workers’ Union. It would take between 1150 to 1200 men to work the port. ’To Mr Smith; He said he had known tho fihaw-Savill Company frequently load over 10C0 butter boxes an hour. He admitted he had seen tho rate drop as low as 500, but that was not the fault of the waterside workers. Austin Campbell, secretary of the Port Chalmers Waterside Union, said that he had bad general experience, with the exception of rigging work, which he had not taken up as be did not care to go aloft. If the men's wages were low he heard a lot of complaints. With reference to the books issued by the federation, he had kept' check of about 80. In witness’ opinion the wages paid for repair work was far too low in comparison with other sections of waterside labour. A man named Burrell, who had been engaged on repair work, had earned £176 for 12 months’ labour. This man was brought on first, and he was probably kept employed on any job a day or two longer in splicing, etc. Probably the greater majority of the repair workers earned under £3 per week. General cargo workers were paid more than repair workers, and this fact was borne out because very few of these men took up repair ■ work. Repair workers had to work coal and general cargo in order to make a living. He had examined tho time-books issued by the federation and the average hours per week for 1023 for repair workers had totalled 20-30 hours, and tho average for general cargo workers was probably lower than that. For 1924 the returns wore bettor, the repair workers averaging 20-31 hours per week. In connection with the handling of basic slag it had had to be moved from the No. 1 to No, 3 holds on such vessels as the Rotorua. Ruahine, and Cornwall. On the plates being lifted there was anything from between one to three indies of dust settled everywhere. Disputes in connection with “dirty” cargo had always been settled with the employers. In witness’s opinion the court should specify a special rate for this class of work, so that the present frequently recurring disputes would be avoided. The company’s man<ager and himself had settled many suen disputes. Ho had had no disputes about stop-work meetings, and he had even picked men for work at such meetings. On one occasion the Port Chalmers’ Union had adjourned Its meeting in order that an overseas vessel might be despatched. The clause dealing with intoxicating liquor in the award was a stigma to the waterside workers. That clause was an unfair reflection on the union. The union would not tolerate drinking; in fact, he had dismissed men who had been under the influence, of liquor. To Mr Smith: Out of tho 80 books issued about 30 had been returned. The total membership of the Port Chalmers’ Union was approximately 273. Mr Smith; That is, the union had got roughly II per cent, of the members to submit returns. Witness maintained that he had repeatedly got information from the company’s manager. He admitted that Burrell had been engaged very occasionally on work other than repair work. Under cross-examination he admitted that about 10 men had been earning more than Burrell. Witness said that that was in the painting department. He had cited Burrell as he was one of the men who had ■worked the longest hours. They had lost. IJd per hour in 1013. Mr Smith: Did not the court’s bonuses make up that loss? Witness: You did not pay it. The Government paid it. Mr Smith: In 1014 repair workers had earned Is 3d and Is (id per hour, and .in 1024 2s OJd and 2s IJd. The bonuses had totalled 14s. For the year ended June 1.1, 1024, the hours worked by 15 repair workers averaged 30.40.,h0urs per week? Witness, (with emphasis): I may say, Mr Smith, that the figures will be dealt with by the secretary of the federation later. Norman Campbell, president of the Port Chalmers Union, said that be had worked at Port Chalmers for the past 1(1 years. He had followed rigging work, but had left it as there was not enough in it. There were 10 or 12 riggers at present employed at Port Chalmers. At the present time repair work was just as casual as general cargo work. From January to June, 1923, there were 32 days in which there were fewer than 20 men employed; and 10 days on which there wore fewer than 40 men employed—that is, there were 51 days in which fewer than 40 men had had been employed. Prom July to December of the same year there were 00 days on which fewer than 40 men had been employed. From January to March, 1024, there were 10 days in which fewer than 20 men had been employed, and 24 days in which fewer than 40 men had been employed. Ninety per cent, of the disputes which had been heard by the local Disputes Committee had been in connection with repair work. Witness gave figures in support of his contention that repair workers were paid less than other cargo workers, and he compared the rates paid to metal workers in other industries with those of repair workers in ship-repair work, which showed that the former were paid higher rates than the latter. John Flood, secretary of the Lyttelton Waterside Workers’ Union, said that ho had distributed the time-books to men who were regularly employed as waterside workers. From June to December, 1923, 300 books had been returned, and from January to June, 1924, 4CO had been returned. The present membership of his union was 600, but this was the slackest period of the year. Normally the membership was 700. Louis Glover, the president of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Federation and of the Wellington Union, an<J a member of the Wellington and National Disputes Committee, said that during the period of the last, award 129 disputes had been heard l>y the, Wellington Disputes Committee, and at; least ono-third of these had been over “dirt” money in respect of basic slag, phosphate, and superphosphate. The National Disputes Committee had dealt with 130 disputes, and 26 of these had been referred to the court. The use of trays in unloading basic slag from the square of the hold under ordinary conditions was absolutely ridiculous. Captain White had said that it was just as easy to use trays a.s slings. This was unreasonable, as when trays were used all tho bags had lo bo carried on to them. In unloading slag, men handling it found that if wearing new boots the soles seemed to separate from the uppers. There were numerous complaints about this. In the recent dispute at New Plymouth the company wanted 16 bags of cement to bo slung in one sling. This would weigh one ton. and in witness’s opinion it was not rafo io hove - one ton in an ordinary net. In New- Plymouth they bad used a sort of net. Witness said that the Wellington Harbour Board had had 500 men in its employ, but it had reduced this number to 350 an<] then to 299. On the union asking for an increase in wages the number had been cut down to 244, a= the only way lo increase the wages was to dismiss some ol the men. In Wellington there was a number of men who were known as the “ ins,” and it was they who received work when the board wanted labour. When (he “ ins ” had all been employed the “outs’* got employment, lie understood that some of the “ outs ” had been promised that their names would bo placed on the list of the “ ins ” next season. There had never been a union stop-work meeting lasting after 10 a.m. In almost every port they had arranged for a stop-work meeting and had not consulted the looal Disputes Committee. Th« clause with regard to liquor was resented by the men, who regarded it as a stigma. The whole of (he various cxb' tives strongly obiected to any man applying for work under the influence of liquor. During the winter it required about 1150 men to work the port of Wellington, hut in the summer time it would require at least 1500 to work the port To Mr Smith; The intoxicating liquor clause was agreed to between the parties some years ago. This closed Mr Roberta’s case.

EMPLOYERS’ evidence in REBUTTAL. Mr Smith called jus his first witness Captain Mmiro, traffic manager of the 'Wellington Harbour Board. Witness said that in Wellington the men on the wharf and the men in the hold were two distinct, bodies of men. The conditions on the wharf and in the hold were quite different, and the board ooulf[ not consent; to the same piny being given on the wharf and in the hold for obnoxious cargo. There hod been no trouble over this in Wellington. Ho thought the douse prohibiting intoxicating liquor was ,a very desirable one. His Honor; Is there any trouble over this ? Witness: There was. but there isn’t now. Mr Roberts interjected that there had been no trouble since Captain Munro had paid the rales he should hare paid. Witness put in a statement of wages showing that there were 254 registered casual employees of the Harbour Board and that, they averaged for the year ended September 30 last £4 10s 3d a week. There were among- those a large number of old men some ef whom bad worked with them for 30 years. As long as they came down and worked two or three hours lite board paid (hern. Jn practice were it not for these old men and others laid aside by sickness and for other reasons the weekly average would be considerably more tlian £A 10s "3d. To Mr Roberts; There were about 20 old men in the board’s service. He did not know how many were old age pensioners. It was no use asking him why he did not have certain other figures showing the wages under gang classification, as he simply used the figures given him by the board. They equalised the wages in the different groups nf employees. All the old men were included in the return put in. They were now tajeen off the register. Ho would bo right in saying that the board’s “fringe” was about ICO mare or less. The highest number employed in one day last year was about 500. ' He agreed that the lowest might have been 87. James Henry Duncan, manager for H. L. Tnpley .and Company, emphatically denied that cement shipments were divided up among the different bolds so as to o.void the extra payment. It was customary to divide the cement cargo a.s equally as possible between the two or throe hatches to expedite discharge and for other reasons he mentioned. The same thing applied to iron. The arrangement of the cargo was in the hands of the captain or the mate. To Mr Roberts: Ho did not agree that the extra, rate should be paid for a small amount of dirty cargo. Captain Victor Gordon Webb, wharf superintendent for the Union Steam Ship Company al Wellington, said he had never heard of any dispute over tanning bark cargo. He had never heard of bad effects from it as described by Mr Roberts. He considered handling coal to crane grabs just as easy as trimming it in bulk. The union’s claim for six trimmers in bunkering deep sea ships was unreasonable. It was not possible to fix a definite number of trimmers for each gang as conditions varied so much. The practice of winchmcn taking a tally had always proved satisfactory. In regard to fractional time the half-hour provision had entailed considerable loss. To Mr Roberts : He had known cases of fog when the tugs could net leave the wharves at Wellington to go out to hulks. If workers happened to be on the hulks at such a time they would be detained. They always accepted the winchmari’s tally. He did not know of any men except the waterside workers having condemned the Burton block Captain Whyte, managing director of Nearmg and Company, said that plaster was not always in bad order. If it were it was dealt with by the' local Disputes Committee. Shingle was brought up to Auckland on shingle barges. It was discharged by basket Or tip or grab. It was quite easy shovelling and was not dirty work. It was used for concrete work. The general cargo gang did not stop when the benzine gang did. There had been much trouble when the fractional time .was half an hour, but since it had been a quarter of an hour there had been none. -Ho thought it was a very good thing to have the clause against intoxicating liquor. No practical men would store slings after they had had a fair turn with basic .slag. They did not got as good work from watesido workers now as they did in 1914. They were still 15 or 20 per - cent, below- that standard. When the stevedores handled case oil they supplied over £IOO worth of gear to each gang. He mentioned other expenses of travelling time and cartage and so forth. Joseph Garrard, general manager for Kinsey and Company at Lyttelton, said they always worked benzine at Lyttelton till subset: ‘ There was no question of having to'clear the whabyes as at Wellington. To Mr Roberts: With benzine cargo down, below and general-cargo ’tween docks he would Work the general cargo by artificial light provided the lower hold was closed down and there was no benzine in sight William John Wilson, assistant wharfinger to the Union Company at Port Chalmers, said he hod never heard the question raised of extra money for handling bark.' The Burton block was passed every year bv the inspector of gear, Winchmes tallied the coal qidto satisfactorily. To Mr Roberts; There was an extra rate now- of Id an hour for trimming. The Tanning bark came here in good condition. M Smith put in sworn statements as to wages, and the court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.