FORM OF CONTROL

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

FORM OF CONTROL

COMMISSION’S FUTURE DECISION FOR CABINET (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Dec. 5. Referring to the waterfront situation, the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said to-day that the impasse which had been reached raised the question whether the Waterfront Industry Commission would be able to continue to function. Obviously, it could only operate effectively while its authority was observed by both employers and workers. “ The present situation makes it necessary to consider whether commission form of control is to continue, and this will have to be decided by Cabinet,” Mr Fraser said. “An alternative would be for the waterside employers and workers to revert to the relationship existing prior to the setting up of the commission in 1940. “ The Waterfront Control Commission was set up in April, 1940, when it was vital to the war effort to- expedite the turning round of ships, The commission carried out most successfully the difficult job of organising the loading and discharging of vessels during the war, and the time taken to turn round overseas vessels was very much reduced. At the same time, under the administration of the commission, with the co-operation of the waterside workers, stoppages of work were reduced to a minimum. After the end of hostilities, the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union approached the Government requesting the reconstruction' of the commission on a peace-time basis with two nominees each of the employers and workers and an independent chairman. A similar request had been made by the employers, and the Government gave effect to the request of the union and the shipping companies. On July 1, 1946, it appointed the Waterfront Industry Commission, with Mr Justice Ongley as chairman and two nominees each 'of the workers’ and employers? organisations.

Improvement of Conditions “Both the "Waterfront Control Commission and the Waterfront Industry Commission have done much in improving the conditions of employment of watersiders and in maintaining harmony on the waterfront,” Mr Fraser said. “The Waterfrorft Control Commission was responsible for the introduction of a system of payment by results known as co-operative contracting by which the men received the actual amount earned on a tonnage or unit basis, and the quicker the vessel was loaded or discharged the greater was the return to the men at an hourly rate. This system has been of great benefit to the waterside workers and the industry, and I understand that the profit distributed under that contracting system now amounts to approximately £200,000 per annum. The Waterfront- Control Commission ' was also responsible for increasing the rate of pay by 2d an hour in June, 1940. and for improving the minimum period payments from a two-hour minimum to a four-hour minimum. Hours of work at the main ports were reduced from 10 p.m. to 9 p.m.. and Saturday afternoon work was cancelled except where a vessel could finish by 5 p.m. Elimination of Uncertainty • The Waterfront Industry Commission has recently instituted further improvements for waterside workers in the payment of holidays, meal money where overtime is performed, and time and a-half for Saturday morning in lieu of time and aquarter previously paid,” Mr Fraser continued. “These improvements alone are estimated to cost approximately £IBO,OOO per annum. The effect of the various improvements in conditions and the organising of the work by the Commission has had the result of materially eliminating the uncertain and temporary nature of waterside work. I think it would be correct to say that under Commission control, the waterside, workers have enjoyed substantial improvements in their conditions unparalleled in any other period in the history of the waterfront. “ Unfortunately, this form of control is jeopardised to-day. It is provided in the regulations that where the members'of the Commission are unable to reach a decision, the decision of the chairman shall be the decision of the Commission. In this case agreement could not be arrived at, and in accordance with the regulations, Mr Justice Ongley made a decision. “ The effect of the decision is to provide for attendance payment for men attending calls for labour and not employed from the commencement of the call. In addition, men in this key industry are guaranteed a minimum wage of £25 in each four-weekly period for A Grade workers and £2l in each four weeks for B Grade workers In other words, A Grade workers are guaranteed a minimum income of £325 a year and B Grade workers a minimum of £273 a year. Distribution of profits under the contracting system will continue and this means a further payment of some £200,000 annum at the present stage, or an’average of £4O per man per annum for those participating. “ I am advised that these terms have been rejected by the national executive of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union,” he concluded. “The effect of this action completely nullifies the work of the Waterfront Industry Commission. It is evident that if the decisions of the commission, properly arrived at, are not to be accepted, then the commission is of no effect and its continuance is impossible to justify.”