Untitled

Chronicle (Levin), 12 June 1948, Page 3

Press AssociationJ

(Per

W PjLjLi^ u- i , j une II. Tlie Miuisier 'oi. j_uoour -,ueJ-.ctgaii; scaieo touay uiai iiulvhUisiaiianig tlie uriLiuxj aooojiJLciMte uy tiie uuLiouai t. .retary oi tile xN.Z. Vvaiersiae vvorneisf uniou oi iii,e Govei'iimeut s olter to appoiilt an emeigeney aioXJUies eommitiee 10 UoLeniiiiie tko origmai ^.vx^aui-paiiv;. diiipute in xuarcii last, wiiieli olfer- ivas dviilKiut- prejuaiee to tiie present ttispntfe, tlie- uiuon 's ollieiais uave no. lnformed the Go,vernment that its acceptance of the Governmem s olfer is , oiiditional on hooks or legs being provided for the removai of tne hatclies of the Monntpark at the present time. - ' ' The agreenient arrived at between the Waterfront Industry Commission and the union officials oii .Alareh 17 lasl for tlie resumption Of ivbrk at that time, and under the circuhistanees. tlien existing, has no eonnection whatever with the present Mountpark dispute, he sani. "Two. nuuiths have elapsed aud the ship has been away from New /A-.aiand and has returned. It has been worked in Australia witliout hooks, part of the cargo was diseharged on tiie present trip at Wellington without hooks, and the hatches were handled by non-union labour at Auckland On the lirst day without hooks and Wxthout any protest from tlie non-unionists employed. The hatches again have been examined by nautical surveyors of the Marine Depaprtment who have certilied that the hatclies eompjy with the general harbour regulations and are safe to handle by hand. ' ' In March last the . union officials suggested taking court proeeedings with respect to the originai Mountpark dispute and the Commission stated it would facilitate so far 'as it was able tlie hearing of any such court proeeedings. Wlien tlie union officials proposed to commence these proeeedings they asked the Commission to admit that the Coniniission was the employer of the meii concerned and had dismissed them. 'i'liis tlie Commission could not admit because as everybody khew the Union .Steaiu tShip Co. of New Zealand Ltd. was tlie employer of the men and had dismissed labour on February 20 before any dispute had been referred to Ihe Coiiiniission. ' ' Tlie union officials also' then found that in any proeeedings before the court they would be faeed with defences which were bound to succeed. L is no fault of the Commission that the union 's representatives who proposed the taking of the court proeeedings i'ailed to consider adequately whether these iiroeeedings could succeed. Tlie union officials then asked Ihe Government to amend the Waterfront industry Emergency Itegulations with retrqspective cil'ect to eiiabie the matiers in dispute to be determined by a court notwithstanding that the Comtuission had already determined these inatters and its decision was final.and binding.

j "The Government, aithough under no obligution to do so, took the view that it would be lmppy to have the facts of the dispute determined again by a court if that was practicable. On i iiivestigation, howe'ver, it was found j that it was noUpossi&Fe* to make any I such amendment ,to the regulations. j The GoVer.nnienty.fheij madeyan -Oft'er to I nppoint an Emergeney Disputfes Committee with a judge. of the Supreme Court as chairman' to determine the originai Mountpark dispute. This in essence would give the union what its officials said it wanted — the right to have tlie dispute reheard and the justice- or otherwise of ■ the Waterfront Commission 's decision determined by iiii indepondent and judicial tribunal. " Tlie Alinister quoted the eorresjiondence which passed between him and Mr. T. Hill, secretary of the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union, and continued: "On receipt of the unqualilied acceptance of the Government. ;s olfer un approach was made to tlie employers concerned who agreed to the appointment of a tribunal following whicli the Attorney-Generai was requested to approach the Chief Justiee with a view to a Supreme Court judge being made available. Now that the uuiou's officials have been given an opportunity of having the matter adjudiculed upou by a tribunal presided over by a Supreme Court judge, aud aft.er they have given a written acceptance of tliat olfer, they have made the cool claim that as a condition of havj ing tlie disx>ute re-heard at their own request the Govemineut must admit tliat they are right in tlie present dis-

pute and the Commission is completely wrong. Such an admission would be completely at variance with the facts and caunot be made for that very reason." The union officials have all along claiined tliat their only TTesire uas to liave the originai dispute reheard by a judicial bodv. They have now been given that opportunity and are not prepared^to accept it. One is remiiided of the propaganda about their proposal legal action when they wharged tlie Union Steam Ship Co. with having committed a lookout and the siibsequent ignominious withdrawal of that action.

"The Government.'s offer of the tribunal is still open and tlie matter can be beard and determined on its merits as soon as tlie union 's officials are preparod to ini])lement their acceptance of tliat olfer. Tlie Government has always endeavoured to organise the waterfront industry in the interests of our people as a whole and to ensure that the legitimate interests of the waterfront workers are fullv proteeted. As a result the wages and conditions of employment are better than at any previous period. The Government will maintain this policyj but progress is only possible if the negotiations are carrierl on under reasonable conditions aud agreements when made are kept. "