EMPLOYERS' REPLY TO MR. BARNES

Chronicle (Levin), 7 December 1946, Page 7

EMPLOYERS' REPLY TO MR. BARNES

—Press Association

By Telearavh-

WELLINGTON, Dec. 6. Mr. Barxies 's statement liad a familiar ring', aiid. actually tlie waterside workers having been unable to gain the whole of their claims by constitutional nieans had resorted to direct aetion, .said the general secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Employers ' Association (Captain M. T. Holm) in reply to the statement made last night by Mr. H. Barnes, president of the Waterside Workers' Union and a member of the Waterfront Industry Commission. Mr. Barnes 's assertion that Captain Holm refused to pay meal money in aceordance with the Commission 's orderwas incorrect. Wliat lie did was to refuse to accept the union 's interpretation of the meal money order, said Mr. Holm. This order was subsequently clarified by tho Commission making an amendment to it. Mr. Barnes had said that in London the dockers and stevedores received a guarantee of 12s daily, but he failed to point out that this was for attendance twice daily. The nien were paid 6s for attendance at the morning call and 6s for the afternoou call if they were not employod, but they were required to accept any work that was offered them. Payment of attendance money in London had proved unsatisfactory and the workers were now askiug that a guaranteed wage be paid in lieu of it. . "The reference by Mr. Barnes to the effect that the margin decided upoii by , the Court of Arbitration in 1922 of 25 per cent. above the rate i'or general labour no longer existed, calls for cominent, " said Captain Holm. "The facls are that the waterside workers were paid 25 per cent. above the Court 's basic wage rate for casual aml unskilled workers, and this basis was arrived at after taking into consideration the average hours each week at the four maia ports by a substantial iiuin"ber of waterside workers. In Dccember, 1924, the Court again ailopied the same basis when the ret'urn of hours of work of waterside workers averageil 35.64 hours weelcly, and in order to allow waterside workers to earn as much in 35.64 hours as a general labourer would earn if workijig 44 hours per week the liourly rate of waterside workers was increased by 25 per cent. above the general labourer. ' ' Since then the watersiders have been granted a number of conditions whicli improve their earnings and the returns of wages of waterside workers recently published by the Waterside Industry Commission show that the average wage" earned by waterside workers throughout New Zealand is £10 6s 7d per week and the average hours worked are 41| per | week. | "It is clear, thereforc, that the ■ casualness of the work has been practic1 ally removed. The wage rate of the waterside worker is one penny per 1 hour higher than the award rate for skilled workers." Mr. Barnes was incorrect-in stating ■ that the present cooperative stevedor- ■ 'ing 'OO'ntract rates Were agreed upon bv , the employers as a fair average. They , were lixed arbitrarily " by the Wateri front Control Commission on which the ■ employers ' coptention was that they . should be ffxed on wliat was considered as n fair out'put per gang per hour. It| was on this winch time basis that Mr. | Barnes contended waterside workers i had increased their output by 30 per ■ cent. "He well knows that the output today at the main ports does not show l any iiuprovement and that the turn- > round of ships has been further slowed U]> during Ihe last 12 months by restrictcd hours of vvorlc," said Captain • Holm. "Today we have the position that the waterside workers are receiving a bonus under the cooperative contract system supposedlv for accelerating work while in actual fact they are delaviug work by an overtime strike which rcduces the hours by 19 a week. 1 '