COMMISSIONS FAILED BECAUSE WATERSIDERS REFUSED TO OBEY THEM

Wanganui Chronicle, 31 October 1950, Page 6

COMMISSIONS FAILED BECAUSE WATERSIDERS REFUSED TO OBEY THEM

WELLINGTON, Last Night (PA)— Five of the six Waterfront Commissions or Authorities since 1940 have ceased to function because the watersiders either refused to obey their decisions or refused to attend their meetings. This statemeit was accepted by the general manager and chairman of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Mr. A. E. Bockett, as correct when it was put to him today by Mr J. F. B. Stevenson, counsel for the Harbours' Association, before the Royal Commission on the Waterfront Industry. Mr Bockett was under cross-exam-ination by counsel throughout this afternoon.

Mr S. 4. Stephenson, counsel for the Port Employers’ Association, said there was a number of things which Mr Bockett had mentioned in evidence with which the employers could not agree.

Questioned by Mr Stephenson, Mr j Bockett said the Waterfront Industry | Commission had made requests to the | union to reduce the number of unauthorised stop-work meetings. The requests had not brought satisfactory results. Mr Bockett agreed that the waterfront employers had, with one i exception, always accepted the decis- I ions of the Waterfront Industry Com- I mission. 1 He did not agree that the union had j always ignored the commission’s rul- I Ings. They had ignored a number of , them. Mr Brockett agreed that the I present leadership of the union was ; militant. There had been full co- ; operation with the commission in its , early days. The amount of co-oper- I ation varied according to the leader- . ship in power. Mr Stephenson said that from time j to time it had come to the knowledge j of employers that there was some intimidation of some members by lead- | ers of the union—in other words any opposition was quickly quelled at a stepwork meeting or in some other ways. He asked Mr Bockett if he mad made any investigation of the way stopwork meetings were held. Mr Boc iett said he had not done so. Mr Stephenson: Have you had any j evidence of this alleged intimidation t bv union leaders? —No. Mr J. F. B. Stevenson, for the Harbours’ Association and tne Wellington and Lyttelton Harbour Boards, asked Mr Bockett if it would be fair to say that Mr Justice Ongley, former chairman of the Waterfront Control. Commission, resigned because he could ; not carry on. The workers were not accepting his decisions. Mr Brockett said. Mr Jus- j tice Ongley had made his own state- I ment as to why he resigned. WELCOMED COMMISSION. To Mr Stevenson, Mr Bockett said the union leaders had welcomed in the Press th? establishment of the Royal Commission. They gave assurances that they would carry on work without interruption pending the findings of the commission. The subsequent stoppage in September was. he thought. a breach of these assurances. Mr Stevenson said that in the 10 years of commission control since I 1940 there had been six differen* forms of commission or authority Would Mr Bockett agree that these had all ceased to function because of the actions of the workers in reflsin to attend meetings of the commission or authority? Mr Bockett said the first commission came to an end because both employers and the union wanted representation. He agreed that the other five commissions had ceased to func tion for the reason stated by Mr Stevenson. The Royal Commission adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.