Minister Gives Facts Of Mountpark Dispute

Chronicle (Levin), 6 July 1948, Page 5

Minister Gives Facts Of Mountpark Dispute

Press Asso'eiiiiiiM)

" (Pif

^ AUCKLAND, Juiy 5. "The Auckland rate of unloading jverseas ships is very unsatisfactory, bhing four tons per gang per hour less t'kan the rate at Weilington for the year ended March, i94S. The rate oi work at Auckland is the worst among New Zealand ports. Tlxe Auckland rate of handiin'g eoastwise cargoes is by far the worst in New Zealand. For thU state of affairs. Mr. Barnes can cla.ii>' inueh. of the eredit.77 This statement was made tonight by the Minister of ' Lab'our, Mr. McLagan, in a lengthy reply to statements made in. Auckland at the weekend .by Mr. j Barnes when diseussing the Moiintpark dispnte. Th'e Minister claimed'that Mr. Barnes, by refusing ,to answer periinent qu'esfcions directed to him, "had shown that he was iess concerned with giving the public the f'ull facts oi the waterfroni dispute than With misj,eading it by quoting sorne carefully selected ligures. Mr. Barnes had clumsily evaded an earlier invitation tb debate wateri'ront Issues. The figures given by Mr. Bat'hes conccrning rat.es oi' loading, were "for the, year ended March, 1940, and the year bnded March, 1947, wliereas later figures destfoyed his. case. Foi- instance, Mr. Barnes elaimed tliat the Auckland rate of loading biixtef was 780 cases per gan-g per hou? but the jiresent rate in Auckland had falleh progresslvely to 709 boxes per -hour, which was not even tlie highest'rate in New Zealand Iet aloiie the world. The Wellington rate, fbr instance, was 74.1 boxes per hour. The rates given by Mr. Barnes l'or loading cheese were simiJarlv misleadihg. "As Jlr. Barnes had on four oecasions broken his solemn pledgC to the Govemnient by refusing tb accept d'ecisions that he had 'undeftakCn t'o ac-t-ept, it is fitting ii'e should t'alk of hlouble-crossing. ' " said Mr. McLagah. "Even on the matt'ei- on which his nn warranted charge ih made, thfe Waterfront ComriiiSsibh feoiild, with much greater reasoii, charge Mi'. Barnes With trving to ( double-cross 7 it. "The facts are ihat when tlio first Mountpark holdup had been in exis'tence for about foi>r weeks and Mr. Barnes had failed to get his own way by force, hfe prOposed to the Watert'ront Commission thht thfe dispute should be takfen tb h Court for settlement. The Commission agreed to aefeept the servifee of a Writ and to expedite the' hearihg bf thfe dispdte by the ( 'oiirt. Aii fearly hfedrihg ih ihe Buprenie Court was arfangfed and the Commission, ih a spirit of ultrafairness, agreed to the Mountpark 's hatches being handled thechanically until- the case was heard, so that "the union 's case would in no Way bfe prejudiced. 77 The Minister continued tlntt the -union . then made a "cool demartd77 that the Waterfront C'onltrtissibn should admit it was the ehiployer of thfe men who had refusfed work brt ihe Monnt j>ark and that it had dismis'sed tlifese men. "Both tliese hdmissions would have been n'otbfi'oiiSly false in fact and the Commission naturaliy declined to make them, 77 said, Mr. McLagan. The union theh further demanded that tli ; Government should amend the Waterfront; Industry Regulations to give the union the prospect of su'ceess in its action against the Commission. In short, when Mr. Barnes proposed a legal settlemcnt and- then found he could not succeed with his legal action, lie asked that faise adhiissions bfe made and that the regtllations be altered ret rospectiveiy to give liiiit a chanee oi' success. Refusal to giye wav to these preposterbus dertiands he described as a "double-cross.7' Mr. Barnes had not vot serve'd his writ On the Commission and dbviouslv would not do so. liowever,- althougii Mr. Barnes' proposal to take legal action had proved a tlasco, and altiiough the merits Of the dispute had already been decided by a tribunal Whose decisions Mi-. Barnes liad pledged himseif to accept, the Government did not take an attitude that the matter had been determine'd and that was the end of it. To give Mr. Barnes the fullest opportnnity to prove his claims, the Government offerfed, if tlie employer was also willing, to submit the matter to a tribunal presidfed over by a Supreme Court Judge. The employer agreed but Mr. Barnes atid his uilion, after acceptiilg this offer, repudiatfed their acceptance. The offer was still open and a Judge of the Rupreme Court was surely as well qualifiod to heur the l'acts of the dispute and make a decision therfeon, as any -Auckland citizen. "If the union genuinely wants a decision 011 the merits of the dispute bv a competent and indep'endent authbritv, it has the opportunity, 7 7 eoncluded the Minister.