Bonus Pay for "Seagulls" on N.Z. Wharves

Wanganui Chronicle, 4 September 1947, Page 6

Bonus Pay for "Seagulls" on N.Z. Wharves

HOUSE REJECTS CLAIM TO MAKE IT RETROSPECTIVE

(P.A.) Parliament Bldgs., Sept. 3. “How these people love to paddle in the mud of hate against the workers," declared the Postmaster-General (Mr. Hackett) of the Opposition during an animated discussion in the House of Representatives this afternoon on the right of "Seagulls” to participate in bonuses paid out by the Waterfront Commission for work performed on the wharves.

Since April 1, this year, bonuses have been shared by non-unionists as well as by members of the Waterside Workers' Union, but the House was considering the petition of the Lyttelton "Seagulls" asking for portion of the bonuses paid out before that date.

Mr. C. H. Chapman (Govt., Wellington Central) reported that the Labour Bills Committee had no recommendation to make on the petition of G. Finlayson and others, of Christchurch, praying for a participation in the profits of the stevedoring contract at Lyttelton. Mr. W. A. Sheat (Opp.. Patea) said the position arose from the fact that work on the waterfront was performed not only by unionists, but by members of the non-unionists union “Seagulls." The petition sought a right for those outside the Waterside Workers’ Union to share in bonus payments. Since April 1, bonuses had been shared by all waterfront workers, but the grievance of the “Seagulls" was that they had been denied a share in the bonuses from the time thev were introduced, in 1940 until April 1 this year. Just two years ■ ago, some Auckland “Seagulls" lodged a similar petition, and the Labour Bills Committee then recommended the petition to the Government for favourable consideration. If that recommendation had been heeded promptly, Mr. Finlayson and those he representea would not have needed the present petition. Whereas, because of the Government’s neglect of the matter, they had been denied a share in the bonuses for another twa years, from 1945 to 1947. The “Seagulls" helped earn the money from wnich bonuses were paid, but privileged members of the Waterside Workers’ Union received their own share, together with a share earned by the “Seagulls” who got nothing. , Mr. W. S. Goosman (Opp., Piako): That's private enterprise. Mr. Sheat said the system followed until April 1, was exploitation of workers by workers, of non-unionists by unionists, with the apparent blessing of the Government. “Seagulls" claimed that to ask them to work for less than union members, was in fact, to oblige them to scab. At the time the 1945 petition was discussed by the House it was stateu £665,000 had been paid out in bonuses. This morning the committee had been told the amount now exceeded £1,000,000, so that £400,000 had been paid out in approximately two years. The delay in giving effect to the committee’s previous request was inexcusable, for the Government's recent action in including “Seagulls” in bonus payments showed it was practicable to do so. The privileged monopolists of the closed Waterside Workers' Union had received money to which they were not entitled. Mr. Goosman said a surprising i>osition had arisen whereby some men received money earned by others, while those others were denied their just rights. Unionists had exercised that very acquisitiveness which the Govern’men. so often denounced. This was private enterprise at its worst. “I am amazed and disgusted that members on the Government benches do not rise in their places, as one man, to protest against this unfair monopoly,” said Mr. Moosman. Mr. Hackett said the Opposition, especially the members for Patea ana Piako, loved to paddle in mud of hate against the workers. The petition under discussion was actually presented to the House last year, but, owing to the large number of petitions before the House, considerat.on of it had to be deferred until this year. In the meantime the Minister of Labour, to whom no credit had been given, had put into operation a system of including "Seagulls" in the bonus payments. At the time of the

previous petition in 1945 some of the casual workers on the wharves were men who, in their own occupations, were earning up to £l5OO a year and came to the waterfront to make some more money—some of them under assummed names, to avoid payments of income tax. Under those conditions, and because it was impossible to trace all of the 36,000 men then doing casual work on the Auckland waterfront alone. It would have been impossible to include all the workers in the bonuses. Now that the waterfront conditions were stable enough to permit it, the Minister of Labour had applied the new system, which was so elaborate that the Waterfront Commission had needed extra staff to check and calculate payments to the workers.

Mr. A. S. Sutherland (Opp., Hauraki) said justice had at last been obtained for “Seagulls," in that thenrequest had been met since April 1. However, the position should be adjusted retrospectively. He knew of one man who worked on the Auckland waterfront, who, on bonus day, received “nothing but a kick in the back of a knee,” while a man who worked alongside him received £2B. The "Seagulls" were entitled to thenshare of the bonuses for past years, and the money to pay them should be reclaimed from the unionists to whom it had been unjustly paid. A Gvernment member: We will give you the job of collecting it. Mr. Sutherland said a closed union was wrong. If there was work on the New Zealand waterfront for 12,000 men, the membership of the union should not be restricted to 6000.

Mr. T. E. Skinner (Govt. Tamaki) said the Opposition again had been singing its hjunn of hate against the watersiders. The position already had been rectilied by the introduction of a

system enabling all waterfront workers to participate in bonuses. Much

noise had been made about a sum of £665,000, but, shared by all, it would put less than half a, crown in the pockets of some workers. Opposition voices: It would put £lOO in the pockets of others. Mr. Skinner said the committee had no option but to bring down the recommendation that it did. Mr. J. P. McAlpine (Opp., Selwyn) said the Government should have rectified the position three years ago. A man who was earning £7OO was just as entitled to work on the waterfront and claim a bonus as anyone else. Mr. J. R. Marshall (Opp., Mt. Victoria) said that every member of the committee was sympathetic to the case of the petitioner, but, for technical reasons, the committee was unable to make a recommendation. The evidence given to the committee showed that when 50 vacancies occurred on the Dunedin waterfront only three or four non-unionists were admitted to the union.

An Opposition voice: Victimisation. Mr. W. A. Bodkin (Opp., Central Otago), said the speech made by the Postmaster-General indicated that the job was too big for the Government, and that view was also endorsed by the member for Tamaki. The Government was full of zeal, but it found the job just could not be done. The situation was absolutely preposterous, and the truth of the matter was that it was Government policy to keep a closed union and give protection to a section.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. McLagan) said the Opposition's sympathy for the “Seagulls” came five months too late. Tne real and practical sympathy came from the Government, who saw to it that the “Seagulls” had been paid. The position on the Dunedin waterfront described by the member for Mt. Victoria was incorrect. Admissions to the union were made from those who followed the waterfront for their livelihood. Mr. W. Sullivan (Opp., Bay of Plenty) supported the statements of the member for Mt. Victoria and added that he did not think anything could be done at this stage to trace all who had worked on the waterfront. On Government and three Opposition members spoke before Mr. Chapman, who, in his reply, said the inference of the remarks made by the member, for Patea was that unionists took what should have been shared with non-unionists. That was incorrect. The committee's report that it had no recommendation to make was adopted.