THE VITAL ISSUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26842, 5 August 1948, Page 6

THE VITAL ISSUE

WATERFRONT INQUIRY SAFETY OF HATCHES CASE FOR COMMISSION BEGUN P.A. AUCKLAND, Aug. 4. A further stage towards completion of the hearing of an inquiry into the Mountpark and Broompark disputes was reached to-day, when the Waterside Employers’ Association completed its case and that for the Waterfront Industry Commission was begun. Counsel for the commission, Mr G. G. G. Watson, addressed the tribunal for more than four hours and expects to complete his opening to-morrow morning. No indication was given of the number of witnesses to be called by Mr Watson, but the possibility of the hearing extending into next week is apparent. Mr H. Barnes, the representative of the Waterside Workers Union, has indicated that in addition to addressing the tribunal he may apply to call certain further evidence Mr Watson, senior counsel for the Waterfront Industry Commission. said that the dominant question which the tribunal had to resolve was a comparatively simple one of fact, whether on the dates referred to the hatches of the Mountpark and the Broomoark were or were not safe to handle by hand having regard to their weight.

There was no substantial difference between the circumstances affecting these two ships except that there was some deficiency at the beginning in regard to the hatches of No. 1 hold of the Mountpark. , , In the submissions of the commission, these were in a short time made good and from that time on the dispute as to the two ships were identical. Mr Barnes had claimed, and the commission agreed, that the onus lay on Mr Barnes to prove by evidence that these hatches were not safe because of their weight and that the decisions given by the Waterfront Industry Commission on this question were wrong. The overburden of subsequent negotiations and arguments must not be allowed to obscure this simple issue. _ In his opening remarks Mr Barnes had raised many side issues without subsequently calling evidence on them, and the silence of the commission on these side issues must not be taken as acquiescence with Mr Barnes, said Mr Watson. The assault alleged by Mr Barnes was not to be taken as acquiesced to nor any lack of rebuttal as an admission that, if, the subject were relevant, evidence could not be called establishing provocation over a long period, likewise with the words of accusation spoken against the commission and the words of disparagement against the chairman and Ministers of the Crown. If these remained unanswered as irrelavent to the inquiry, this must not be taken as acquiescence by the parties he represented. Mr Watson then outlined the history of the dispute at length.