WATERSIDE LABOUR.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXVI, Issue 18443, 29 March 1922, Page 5

WATERSIDE LABOUR.

THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT. The hearing of the “dispute” in connection with the wAges and conditions incidental to waterside employment was continued yesterday, when further evidence was given in support of the employers' claims for reductions and modifications. Pointed evidence and rigorous cross-examination marked the proceedings. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, March 28. The hearing of the Waterside Workers' Dispute was continued before the Arbitration Court. Mr Justive Fraser presided, with Mr W. Scott as assessor for the employers and M. J. Reardon, assessor lor the employees. Mr. W. J. Smith appeared for the employers and Messrs J. Roberts (Secretary of the Waterside Workers’ Federation) and J. Brice (Secretary of the local Union) for the employees. Mr Smith, before continuing his case, referred to the question of procedure that had been discussed on the previous day and intimated that in view of the shortness of time for the sitting in Wellington, the employers proposed to go on with their case in the ordinary way. His Honour pointed ou‘ that that was the best course. After Mr Roberts had presented his case, the employers would have the right of reply, in the sense they would have an equal opportunity with Mr Roberts of having a last word at the finish. The Court would not be influenced by any little hitch in procedure.

Mr Smith then continued his examination of tlie first witness. Captain Walton, wharf superintendent for the Union Company. The cessation of overtime at 10 p.m., witness stated, was the cause of much inconvenience, especially in the matter of increased working costs. The principle of “stop work” meetings had a very bad moral effect. Everyone connected with shipping or warehousing goods on the wharf was obliged to stand idly by till the men resumed. One official “stop work" meeting was held per month, but the Union held meetings vhenover they deemed it necessary, whether the employers agreed to it or not. An unofficial meeting of the Union had been held only a few days ago. About half the men appeared to be inside the hall and the rest were outside. The only other body that held “stop work” meetings was the Seamens' Union, which had secured the right because of the precedent obtained by the wate: riders.

Mr Roberts cross-examined the witness concerning a statement he had made on the previous day, that coal-handling had been reduced from 15 to 10 tons per gang per hour.

“You have made the accusation” said Mr Roberts, “that the handling of coal was restricted by resolution of the Union."

Witness said he had had a good indication of it.

Mr Roberts maintained that it was merely an opinion. He had no evidence of it.

Witness.—The Union takes good care of that.

Captain Walton said he had stated quite clearly that the quantity of coal and cargo handled was regulated, presumably by resolution of the Union. He would bring evidence to prove that the members of the Union themselves had testified to that. Stop work meetings, he continued, in answer to questions, i :ually occupied the whole morning and the time lost was never made up. In regard to work after ordinary hours, he expressed the opinion that if the men were left to themselves they would work overtime.

Mr Roberts. —Who stops them? Witness. —In my opinion the Union stops them. Mr Roberts.—You havo no evidence to prove that. Witness said the Union had had it so long pumped into them that they were not to work at night that it was a job to get them to work overtime at all. Mr. Roberts asked whether Mr Bruce had not joined with the employers in asking the men to work after 10 p.m. “You say that what Mr Bruce says to the men is quite different from whiit he tells others?” he asked.

Witness replied that Mr Bruce might say different things under different circumstances. Can you bring evidence to show that Mr Bruce acts dishonestly?— No.

But you make an inference before the Court and the Press that he is dishonest in his methods —No. I would say that what he says to the men publicly and what he says to them privately are two different things. How do you know?—Oh, I leave that to you, sir. You will understand it.

Mr Roberts (after further passages).—You accuse me of acting differently to the men privately than I do in public? Witness.—What I suggest is that what Mr Roberts as an official of the Union would say in public at our request is very probably different from what he would say to the executive Union in private. Further cross-examined, witness stated that Mr Bruce had on one occasion threatened to hold a ship up pending the settlement of some point in dispute. He could not recollect the time or date, nor whether anyone else had been present. Mr Roberts —Yet you remember what Bruce said. It is strange you recollect about these threats. The cross-examination was continued.