Untitled

Chronicle (Levin), 22 March 1949, Page 6

AUCKLAND, March 21. A claim for bonus payments over a period of ' years was brought by 'three non-union waterside workers in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, repre-. sented by Messrs Henry and Sinclair, are John Alexander Bankier, Edward Deed and James Duthie who make their elaim against the Waterfront Industry Commission, (Mr. T. P. Cleary, -Of Wellington) and the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Union (Mr. T. A. Uresson, :of; Christchurch). The ease is being heard by Mr. Justiee Fair. The claim is largely based on an order of the Waterfront Control Commission dated June 6, 1940, requiring that when members, of the Waterside Workers' . Uhionvand non-members are employed together in any capaeity there is to be no distinction between them, but both are to receive equal pay for equal work. Plaintiffs said that from Oetober 15, 1941 to September 15, 1942 amounts received by the Commission were distributed on an equal basis between unionists and non-unionists, but that from September 15, 1942 to April 1, 1947 they were not paid on an equal basis Dut that the bonus was giveh to unioh workers only. Plaintiffs had no records of their hours of work, but the Commission had. They did not know by whom they were employed. They elaimed that they were entitled to the same rate of pay as unionists. Defendants contended that it had been arranged between the Commission and the Waterside Workers' Union tliat all proceeds from the eooperative contract system should be divided among unionists at the port where a contract was undertaken. In answer to his Honour, Mr. Cleary eaid that if all non-unionists were entitled to the same proflt distribution as unionists through the period of years elaimed the aggregate would be £26,00U tor Auckland. That ineluded many thousands of people apart from fuiltime unionists who particularly in the \var years put in occasionally a few hours on the wharves. The same position arose at other ports. His Honour said plaintiffs were not

enthusiastic about including all nonunionists and suggested that the ' ' white collar brigade ' ' should not come and share. The spasmodic workers on the wharves were not represented at these proceedings. Mr. Cleary said he thought all that could be done in these proceedings was to deal with the claims of those who made wharf work their regular em ployment. His Honour said the Court could decide to do that. These others had not put forward any claim. The general manager of the Waterfront Industry Commission, Arthur Bockett, in evidence said a surn ot £16,600 was held by the Commission in Auckland arising from prolits from the eooperative contract scheme. Payments had been made from the fund' at the union 's request for the sick benetit fund, band and sports bodies. It had been ealculated that if their claims were sustained the amount due to Bankier would be £176, to Deed £213, and to Duthie £142. In answer to Mr. Henry, witness said non-unionist labour had never been consulted about the bonus. The nonunionists had no organisation that could be consulted. American ships did not come into the eooperative contract scheme. The case was adjourned.