TRIBUNAL SITS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26478, 4 June 1947, Page 6

TRIBUNAL SITS

WANGANELLA DISPUTE

WORKERS’ METHODS ATTACKED

ADDRESS BY EMPLOYERS' ADVOCATE

P.A. WELLINGTON, June 3. The methods adopted by the workers in gaining a settlement on two of the issues of the Wanganella dispute were attacked by the employers’ advocate, Mr S. G. Stephenson, at the Strikes and Lockouts Tribunal on the workers’ claim for higher wages while the ship was on Barrett’s reef. Mr Stephenson said the methods presented “ a sorry spectacle and will for ever be stigmatised as a major blot on the industrial record of this country.”

In a brief reply, the workers’ advocate, Mr P. E. Warner, said it was the unreasonable attitude of the employers that had been responsible for the delays in the work on the ship, in spite of attempts by the workers for a speedy settlement of the dispute. The workers involved are the members of the Wellington Boilermakers and Metalworkers’ Union and the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Engineering Workers’ Union. They are seeking 17s 6d an hour for all time spent by them on the stranded Wanganella, including sleeping and travelling time. The wage paid by the employers, William Cable and Co., was 17s 6d an hour for actual working time only.

The chairman of the tribunal was the conciliation commissioner, Mr S. Ritchie. Representing the employers were Messrs C. G. Camp, J. Cable, and K. A. Belford. and the workers’ representatives were Messrs C. G. Caswell, J. Neale, and A. C. Dellaway. Employers’ Views

After the evidence for the employers had finished, Mr Stephenson said he wished to give the employers’ views on the two issues already agreed upon by the parties—payment of Is 9d an hour in excess of award rates for work while the ship was on the dock, and as governed by new awards and agreements for work after that with any disagreements to be dealt with by the appropriate Disputes Committee. The employers had from the very start of the dispute maintained that the work required to be performed on the Wanganella was purely and simply ship repair work, not differing in any way from that which had been performed both before and during the war, so when the workers asked for an extra 6s an hour, the employers considered themselves justified in refusing. The employers, however, iyere confronted with more than a demand for 6s an hour for work actually performed on the ship. The demand extended to all work done on or in connection with the vessel in respect of the repairs. The impact of this demand, if conceded, would in the employers’ view have been disastrous to the whole economy of the country. The employers maintained, and they still did, that the work should be done on the rates of pay and conditions contained in current and future awards. It might be asked why. holding the views expressed, the employers agreed to the extra payment of Is 9d an hour. “In plain terms, we had no alternative,” said Mr Stephenson* “You well know that, wh6n negotiating an industrial agreement, particularly where the dispute has ■reached the stage this one had, one has to resort to expediences that cannot be supported on logical or reasoned arguments. The Is 9d was not computed by any yardstick. It represented a figure at which the two parties met, the workers having started from 6s downwards and employers advancing from nil. In the aggregate, this payment was estimated to cost £7OO. The Penalty This sum represented the penalty the employers had to pay to obtaintheir original request—that all future - work would be performed at the rates and on the conditions of the then current awards and for the privilege of asking the workers to cease breaking the law and return to work. The cost to the employers had far exceeded the penalty of £7OO already mentioned, he said. The employers immediately concerned had paid, and were still paying a sum muck in excess bf that amount, but the direct and indirect economic loss to the community generally might be incalculable at this stage of the country’s productive position. f

Proceeding to the' issue .now before the tribunal, Mr Stephenson said the claim by the workers for all the time spent on the ship while she was on the reef should be rejected on the principle that the employers had always contended that this type of claim should not be brought before a tribunal set up under the regulations. The workers, as he understood their contentions, affirmed that the employers had committed a breach of the award. If this contention was correct, then the workers should follow the invariable practice in such cases and bring penalty and/or civil proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court or the Court of Arbitration.

Mr Stephenson also submitted that a valid agreement was reached between the representatives of the employers and the workers in terms of the award. He strongly opposed a suggestion made by Mr Warner that such agreement could only be negotiated on behalf of the workers by the union secretary. The third submission for the employers, he said, was that if the tribunal held that no proper agreement had been effected, then the rates already paid were fair and reasonable and should not be increased. Workers’ Attitude

Mr Warner, in reply, said the issue before the tribunal was a straightforward one. The men’s award stated that each salvage job should be considered on its merits by representatives of the employers and the employees, and a rate of pay awarded accordingly. This had not been done in the present case. A representative had hot been appointed by the workers They had merely been called together by an agent of the employers, told what the rates of pay were, and invited to leave the ship if they did not like the offer. The men had no knowledge of the extent of the work. “If you call that an agreement, I have another name for it,” he said. Mr Warner added that in trying to reach a speedy agreement o| the case, the workers had been hindered by the attitude of the employers.