WHY THE WORKERS' UNION SUPPORTS FEDERATION

Chronicle (Levin), 11 January 1947, Page 8

WHY THE WORKERS' UNION SUPPORTS FEDERATION

°ress Association

Bv Teleq'ravh — i

WTELLlNUTON, .t-an. 10. Reasons why oflicials of the Xev. Zealand Workers' Union favouied lianding over the waterfront dispute to the Federation of Labour were set oui in a statement last night by Arr. Carl H air, general secretary of the union. His union had aeted as it did for the following reasons: "(1) Because of the potential pos si'ble adverse effect 011 wage rates oi many thousands of their members ii the dispute was not speedily settlod oi became more aggravated; (2) because of' statements published in the press l«> the waterkide workers' executive that the workers of New Zealand would be mobilised in support of their dispute; (3) in the interests of the - industrial I movement as a whole a letter wa.directed to the secretary of the Federa tion of Labour pointing out that if it was necessarv to mobilise the workers of New Zealand in support of any ; elaims by any affiliations and tha' such aetion manifestly was tlie job o" ithe Federation of Labour after con 1 sultation with ather organisations j affected, or liltelv to be affected. | "Executive letters were then sent 'to the- IS members of the New Zealand Workers' Union 's national executive, all over this country, asking their endor'sement or otherwise of head offi.ee 's aetion in requesting the 'FedOra-

ion of Labour to endeavour to settle :he dispute. "Bv tlie afternoon of January 6, uiffieient repbes endorsing the aetion | uid the reasons for it, and expressing the opinion that the l1 ederation of Ijaboui* should liandle this dispute, had been received froni members of the national executive to justify our attendance at a liieeting of repre3entatives of various uuioits who %Neie alreadv involved, or likely to ^ be inv.olved, and identifv the New Zea land Workers' Union with the resolution passed. ' ' The replies to hand show that a substantial inajority of the executixe endorsetf head oflice 's actions, and is in favour of the Federation of Laltoui making endeavours to get the Waterside Workers' Union to place the dispute ih the federation 's hands for settlement. Whether the Watersiders' Union concur with lliis request. ls, oi: course, a mai ter for that union to decide. ' ' History of Dispute The wharf dispute began at Ihe end bt' Noveuiber, wlien a decision on tlie w.agiy l'c)f ^ate^sii|i Avoi^y rs iwitV ?brpTi.g|it dqvvn ^by^tlHiycl^vq'nia^^vt tlie \tafeA'ronL lyiduMry Mr. Jnstiqe HTigivy.; \ National' leaders oT ihe union iustanlly coiidenined tlie ihe decision as unsatisfaclory to tlie workers and at Auckland,. Wellington and New Plyuiouth tlie 'Ib-liour week policy was i'nstiluted pending settle nient oi" Ihe union 's elaims.

This policv was laler extended by the national executive \h all bnl the niinorj ports. The Govenmient tlrreatened to j suspeud the powers and authorities of | the Waterfront Comniission it the j union did not resume normal honrs as aj preliniinary to further negntiat icjn. ( Wlion the union refused, the (lovern- j ment last Alondav night suspended • practically all the powers oi" the conimission. The waterfront industry has since carried on without any arbitrating or governing bodv exercising Voutrol over wages or conditions. | So far, however, tlie emplovers have 1 matle no move to alter either wages or conditions, aifd" the watersiders _ have j continned their policy of restrictmg vvorking honrs to 40 a week, thereby eliminating night or Sa.turday morningj work. Tlie workers claim the following: — 1. A satisfactorv decision on tlie guaranteed daily wage. 2. Wage increases to restore the position as laid down bv the Arbitration Court, wlierobv waterside workers receive 25 _ pev cent. above the liourly rate of unskilled workers. 3. Immediate improvements in accommodation. 4. Abolition of Saturday engagements.