Taranaki Railways.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLV, Issue 18, 2 November 1910, Page 4

Taranaki Railways.

The Hon. R. McKenzie, replying to a deputation urging the construction of the Eltham-Opunake line, said the Public Works Statement was not likely to inelude provision for any new lines this year, and the policy would be to push on as speedily as possible with the lines now under construction. £lO,OOO was spent on the Stratford-Ongarue extension last year, and the Department had to concentrate its energies to pushing on that line to Whangamoinona at the earliest possible date. Two Miners Buried. A big fall of earth anti stone occurred in the Woodend section of the Westport Goal Company's Denniston mine on Tuesday afternoon, burying two men named Jack Muir and Jim Bowers. Relief parties were at once organised, but their efforts to get near the scene of the accident were frustrated by further falls of stone. Muir was an old resident, a widower. Bowers was a single man, and had taken a prominent part in local boxing. Newmarket Railway Workshops. During the discussion which took place on the Railway Estimates in the House, Mr C. H. Poole raised a question as to the conditions; of work at Newmarket workshops. TTie -Minister promised to have investigation made, and the chief mechanical engineer (Mr A. L. Beattie) last week visited Auckland and made enquiries. A copy of his report has been

forwarded to Mr Poole the Minister. It is as follows: —

“Regarding the alleged sweating in Newmarket Railway Workshops, I took advantage of the opportunity, while in Auckland, to investigate the charges. As the result, I am fully satisfied that there was no ground for the allegation. The workmen employed in the Newmarket workshops are generally efficient and industrious. Coercive measures are not needed or used. Included amongst *ll large bodies of men -there are some few who are less industrious than theiu fellows; they have to be kept up to a fair standard, and it is usually such men who imagine they have a grievance. The! practice throughout the New Zealand railway workshops is to endeavour to obtain from the men a fair day’s work foq a fair day’s wage, and this practice obtains at Newmarket. There is admittedly, no dissatisfaction amongst the Newmarket men as a body, no sweating, and nd unfair conditions.” Complaint hy Waterside Workers’ Union. A serious difference has arisen between the Waterside Workers’ Union, of Auckland, numbering 700 members, and the; New Zealand Shipping Company, regarding the right of the company to refuse to give work in their stores to the. labourers who are members of the union. It is explained by members of the union executive that the waterside workers handle all goods inwards and outwards on the wharves at the rate of wages of 1/3 per hour, with overtime at the rate of 2/ per hour. A custom has prevailed whereby members of the union, when there have been no vessels in port and no work available on the wharves, take employment in the stores adjacent to the waterfront and other parts of the city, handling the various classes of goods which have either been imported over the wharves or which are about to be exported. The rate of wages fon the store work has only been 1/ pen hour, with 1/6 per hour overtime, but notwithstanding this difference in wages the workers have not demurred at accepting such employment, for the reason that it enabled them to earn a living wage. Without it, the wages of the waterside workers would be wholly inadequate, as exclusive work on that wharves is intermittent.

The union point out that the New Zealand Shipping Company are now: attempting to preclude members from- participating in this employment, by requiring every labourer applying for work: in the stores of the company to sign before a justice of the peace a written declaration in the following form:—“l, , hereby declare that I am not % member of the Auckland Waterside! Workers’ Union.”

The executive of the union state thail the object of this written declaration is to prevent the Arbitration Court from including the stores in the award foil the waterside workers, as it will enable them to produce from all their employees in the stores a written evidence thafi they are not members of the Waterside Workers’ Union. It is the intention ofi the Union to make application next yeaC to the Arbitration Court tq include the stores dealing with export goods in thei waterside workers’ award.

Matters have come to a head during the last few days by three men being discharged by the Shipping Company fon the reason, it is alleged, that they refused to sign the declaration above referred to. It is stated by the men who were dismissed that the company’s warehouseman, Mr. Sharp, said: “You must; either sign the declaration or go,” and that these were the instructions he had received from the manager, Mr. Houghton. The whole of the members of the union resent what they regard as a deliberate boycott of the unionists by the New Zealand Shipping Company, and have decided to take whatever action is possible in an endeavour to have the obnoxious declaration cancelled, and to afford their members the same rights ofi employment as other men who are nofi members of the union.

Messrs. Napier and Smith, solicitors t<j the union, have been consulted, and today addressed the following letter to Mr, C. V. Houghton, local manager of the Shipping Company:— “We have been consulted on behalf of the Waterside Workers’ Union with reference to an attempt made by your company to boycott all the members of the Waterside Workers’ Union, and to prevent them earning their livelihood in the stores dealing with goods received from or to be forwarded oversea, A form ef

declaration supplied by you has teen lianded tn us, and which you required One RiAard O'Neill, a labourer in your employment, to sign before a justice of the peace declaring that he was not a tn ember of j the Auckland Waterside AVorkers' Union. As O’Neiil refused to sigu tliis declaration, we are instruct"d that you dismissed him. “We would like to point out how eminently unfair, and in your own interest injudicious, your action has been in this ftnatter. If our instructions be correct, your decision virtually means that when there is no work at the water front in Connection with shipping, the labourers usually employed on the wharves shall lave no right to work in the stores of the city. An action of this kind might Conceivably lead to reprisals, and if your Company is determined to boycott the members of the Waterside Workers’ Union, it would be difficult to convince the members of the imperative necessity Of working for your company on the wharves. We should be sorry to see any friction between the Union and yourselves following from the attitude you have taken up, especially as the greatest iiarmony between employers and WaterSide Workers has hitherto prevailed, and we trust that you will reconsider your position, and withdraw the offensive declaration which you require your labourers to make, and in future permit any person of whom you approve on general grounds to work in your steres as a labourer, irrespective of whether he belongs to the Waterside Workers’ Union pr not.

“Awaiting the favour of an early reply.” The secretary of the union (Mr. Collett), speaking to a “Star” reporter, stated that the men were not looking for trouble, and had no desire to accentuate the position, but that if what they considered was a boycott was persisted in retaliatory measures would be taken, and members of the union would refuse to approach the company’s vessels for the discharge of cargo. All the men asked for was a fair field and no favour in file stores. -Sometimes during the Slack periods of shipping, men could Only earn a few shillings a week on the wharves, and if deprived of working in the stores the disruption of the union would result, because men would not continue as members and would not join it they were unable to supplement their earnings on the wharves by working in (he stores. He also stated that certain firms were always anxious to get waterside workers to do work in their stores, and paid them the full wages because they were more experienced in handling goods than unskilled labour. When interviewed on the matter, Mr. C. V. Houghton denied absolutely that the Company was boycotting members of the Union, acd denied that he had any knowledge of any man being discharged because he refused to sign a declaration that he was not a member of the Union. He pointed out that at the reoent sitting Of the Arbitration Court application was made by the Union to add parties to their award, embracing many firms with stores along the water front. The application was dismissed. One argument advanced by the secretary of the Union was that his Company and other firms took men off the wharf to work in their warehouses, and thereby caused inconvenience to shipping, and financial loss to the men, who, if they were not detained at the stores at 1/ an hour, could lie earning 1/3 an hour on the wharves. In order that there should be no repetition of this in the future his warehouseman had received instructions not to go to the wharves and employ waterside workers, and in order to obviate a charge being’ made against the Company, any man applying for work should be asked if lie was a waterside worker, and make a declaration to that effect. No man had been discharged because be was a member of the Union. Two of the men who would not sign the declaration bad said that they were not members of the union. The Company was doing what it couid to satisfy the Union, and for the casual .work iu the stores non-Unionists were, if possible, being obtained for the leasons stated. An Auckland Endowment. The Appeal Court delivered judgment in the Education Board, Auckland, v. Public Trustee. The question asked was What right, title, or interest has the Board to moneys arising by way of rents or otherwise out of a certain block of land in the city of Auckland ? The land in question is worth about £250,00(1. The Court f Chief Justice Sir Robert 6 tout, and Judges Williams, Cooper, and Chapman, Mr. Justice Edwards dissent-

ing), held that the Board had no claim, but that the Public Trustee held th* lands as trustee of the trusts as defined by the Supreme Court Site Leasing Act, 1875 (Auckland Provincial Act), for educational purposes for the Auckland province in accordance •with the provisions of the Education Act, 1872 (Auckland Provincial Act). The Court considered trusts could not be properly carried out without either assistance from the legislature or under a scheme approved by the Court. Costs on the highest scale and as from a distance were allowed both to the Board and the Public Trustee, to be paid out of the trust funds. No eosts were allowed to the Grammar School or Auckland Hospital Board. £45.060 Loan Granted, for Hospital Extension. The Finance Committee of the Auckland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board reported last week that the trustees of the Auckland Savings Bank had granted the Board’s application for a further loan of £45,000 at 41 per cent, the money to he advanced as required and interest charged from the date of each payment. Debentures would be issued as security, having ten years' currency, and a sinking fund on the total amount borrowed would be set aside annually. The Committee recommended that the offer of the -Savings Bank be accepted, and the recommendation was adopted. The Board also accorded to the chairman and the Finance Committee votes of thanks for having successfully carried out the negotiations. Mr. Potter moved that out of the loan of £45,000 approved for building additions to the hospital, sufficient money be set aside for the building of a children’s hospital. He considered that a sum of £BOOO would be sufficient, and that that amount could easily be saved from the amount of -the loan. He. argued that if there were not sufficient funds available at once, it would still be necessary to go on with the building of a children’s hospital at some time in the future, and it would be well to take this into consideration in approving of the ground plans of the new buildings. The motion was defeated.