Order Of Reference For Mountpark Dispute

Chronicle (Levin), 22 July 1948, Page 6

Order Of Reference For Mountpark Dispute

AUCKLAND, July 21. The ordei? of refei'ence foi1" , the Alountpark waterfront dispute tribunal was diselosed today.. -It is gen^rally regarded as suificiently wide to open up the loug-oustanding problems in the waterside industry, particularly in regard to the system. of control. The Government 's , original intention to narrow the inquiry to specific questions relatihg to the l^atches of the wheat ship Alountpark have obviously been expauded under pressure from the New Zealand Waterside Work'ers' Union. i T%e union 's case will be condheted bv- the natioual 11 president (Alr. H. Barnes). The Waterfront Industry Oommission wili be represented by Alr. T. P. Cleary, of Wellington, -and the Waterside Employers ' Association by, Alr. G. A. Ilamer, of Auckland. Bummarised, the order of reference asks: — (1) Were the. Alountpark hatches safe to reiuove by hand on Pebruary 20, and on subsequent days ha.ving regard to the letter of February 13 from the Government inspector of „watersicle gear at Auckland, and all other relevant considerations? Was the Union Gteam Ship Coy. justified in disinissing the men employed? If not, what pavment should be made to the fnen dismissed? If the men were not properly placed on penalty, what pavments should be made to them? , (2) Was the Waterfront Industry Comxuission's deeision of February 25 a proper deeision? Were the men entitled to refuse the resumption of work in aceordance with. that deeision on subsequent days? (3) Were the men entitled to refuse to move the Alountpark 's hatches on Alay 20 witliout mechanical assistance? (4) Was the Waterfront Industry Commission justilied in deciding on June 24 that the Alountpark be made a preferenee ship? .If not, what payment should be made to the watersiders who would otherwise have been offered emplovnient? (5) Was the dismissal of the men from the Broompark on June 30 justilied? If not, what payments should be made to the men dismissed and pjaced on penalty?