WATERFRONT DEADLOCK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26328, 6 December 1946, Page 6

WATERFRONT DEADLOCK

NO CLOSER

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE MR BARNES PLACES BLAME EMPLOYERS NOT CO-OPERA-TIVE Statements by the Prime Minister, Mi* Fraser, the chairman of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Mr Justice Ongley, and the president of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, Mr H. Barnes, were made to-night in the waterfront dispute. None, however, carried the dispute any nearer a settlement. Meanwhile, the 40-hour week continues in all the main and secondary ports. A move by the New Zealand Federation of Labour to intervene was a feature of to-day’s negotiations. The federation asked the watersiders to confer on the present situation, but no discussion took place to-day. The blame for the present failure to obtain an agreement was placed upon the employers’ representatives on the commission by Mr Barnes to-night. “ The facts are that when the commission met yesterday the chairman stated that he was not bound by his decision on guaranteed wage, but was quite agreeable to having it recommitted,” said Mr'Barnes. “ To-night we agreed to recommit it, but Mr Belford, the employers’ representative, dug his toes in and refused to have the matter reopened. We pointed out that, on the question of meal money, Captain M. T. Holm, secretary of the employers, had refused to pay out as provided in the commission’s order. He had asked at the time that the matter of meal money be committed again and we agreed. The decision of the commission on this point was eventually amended. In spite of that they dug their toes in when Mr Justice Ongley was prepared to reopen consideration of the guaranteed wage. That is \yhy the negotiations broke down.

“ We have always agreed,” Mr Barnes said, “ that on any point, if the employers could show reason why the matter should be reopened, we would agree, but despite this, and despite Mr Justice Ongley’s offer to reopen the present matter in dispute, the employers were adamant.' This fact was an exposure of the falsity of Mr Belford’s previous statement that the guaranteed wage decision was not profitable to the employers did not like it, then the logical thing would have been for Mr Belford to agree tc a recommittal of the Question.

“The decision is, in fact, something the employers have been looking for for 30 years. It would mean a complete emasculation of our contract of employment. The fact remains paramount that the attitude of the employers was solely responsible for the failure to reopen the negotiations. That should be made very clear.” The New Zealand watersiders throughout the war worked long hours to maintain a fast turn-round of shipping. They had previously, by decision of the Arbitration Court, been recognised to have the right to 25 per cent, more wages than unskilled workers. They were prepared, however, to see other workers overtake this percentage and earn more in the war-years. To-day, however, whereas the watersider received 3s ljjd an hour, others were now receiving 3s 2d or 3s 2id The general labourer was guaranteed £6 Is 8d a week. The 25 per cent, difference for thp watersider had disappeared. The conditions imposed today on the watersider belonged to the mediaeval ages. It should be appreciated that, ; .under . the ~monthly guarantee now proposed by the Commission, a man who even so much as absented himself for one day from the waterfront through some cause be-, yond his control would automatically debar himself from receiving the guaranteed wage. The question of accommodation was, one that had been raised by the workers for years past. The accommodation facilities and amenities on the waterfronts for wharf workers would rightly belong to the mediaeval ages. Everyone agreed that the position should be rectified, but for years past and still today the Bill was passed from the Government to the commission to the harbour boards and to the shipowners, and all denied their responsibility. “The conditions for watersiders in New Zealand are, to say the least, poor by comparison with those of white watersiders in any part of the world,” Mr Barnes concluded. “The attitude of the union remains unchanged. We are prepared to enter into discussions on the disputed matters at any time. We have previously demonstrated our good faith by allowing matters to be recommitted at the employers’ request.”