BOTH SIDES STATE THEIR CASE

Chronicle (Levin), 16 August 1949, Page 5

BOTH SIDES STATE THEIR CASE

WELLINGTON, August 15;Tlie claims of the New Zealand Watersido Worker.s ' Lnion with regard to its decision not to work overtimd on the waterfront wei;e set out in a letter to the. Watersi.de. Employers5 Association last week. Signed by the acting secretary of the Y\ aterside Union, Mr. A. Drennan, the letter dated August 10, states: ' * Following our telephone conversation this morning on 'The situation on the waterfronts and the relations of union and employers, 1 ain writing as agreed. The national council of tlie union resolved at its meeting held on July 12 and 13, to impose a total restriction on overtime hours, tliat is, to operate a 44-liour week until the union has had satisfaction on the following matters: (1) Equitable settlenient of our wage demands; (2) extra rate for deckmen; (3) extra rate for men working in refrigerated trucks; (4) repeal of the Wellington Harbour Board bureau and all labour engaged from one eentral bureau; (5) discharging of buik wlieat cargoes; (6) bonus payments to all members of the union; (7) dock work at Port Clialmers; (8) aceommodation and amenities; (9) decision on all claims- and disimtes already filed.; (10) repeal of the Waterfront Ijidustry Emergency Regulations 1946, amendment No. 1 and assuranees .that there will be 110 future Ministerial or Government interference with the functioning of the Waterfront Industry Gommission and Waterfront Industry Authority. These are the matters "in dispute. ' ' It will be appreeiated by you that some of the matters embraced by the item No. 9 and the entire item No. 10, niust finally be settled between your' association, the union and the Government, perhaps by the Government alone. The union, ho'wever, renews its oll'er of last week to open up negotiations with your association on the claims of the union and to have diseussions with you to ascertain your attitude regarding the general situation on the waterfront in connection with commission control and its disputes maehinery, which is the policy of the luiTdn. I have to state that the dispute embracing the ports and including Auckland, is the oue represented in tlys letter. The ultimatum of your Auckland Association to the branch of the union at that port, can therefore have 110 other result tlian a lookout (.f waterside workers there from tonight. "This is a situation of a serious nature wliich is the concern of the national union and wliich can lead to further deepening of the present dispute. The situation will be discussed by the national executive which is called to meet 011 Tuesday next (August 1(5). I trust your association will see fit to meet the union 's oft'er. *' Employers' Repiy On August 12, Captain Holm sent the following letter to'the secretary of the union: "We are iii receipt of your letter of August 10. We note you state commission control is the policy of your union. We would point out that the action of the Auckland branch of the union 011 June 27, in restrictiiug hours of work to 44 a week, and the action of the national council of the union at its meeting held 011 July 12 aud 13, in extending these restricted hours to other ports, is a direct breach of the orders of the Waterfront Industry Commission. It appears, therefore, that your union, while professiug a eertain policy, is not at present prepared to act in uccordanee with tha^ policy. Judge's Decision Quoted "Further, of the ten matters on which you state that your union desixes satisfaction before normal overtime is refumcd, we would reiaind you that the first nine are already before the Waterfront Industry Authority. You should bv fully aware of the reasons why the W aterfront ludustry Authority is not functioning at the present time but we wiuld draw your attention to the dv-usion of the Chief Justice of New Zcaiand iu ret'using writs of mandamus brougiit by your. union against the Waterfront Industry Authority and, in particular, the following passage from this decision: 'A litigant and that is wlmt the plaintiff really is before tln authority, and representatives of that litigant on the authority, have apart from other reprehensible acts, impugned tlie integrity of tliat authority and undermined or endeavoured to undermine its deliberations. The actions complained of have resulted in t.he tribu'nal ceasing to have any of the outward characteristics of a judicial authority and the nature of the relations between the members is such as to make it undesirable that it continufe to -try to function without the assuranees aslced for by the chairnAn. People in judicial positions must act judicially. They are entrusted with authority and at the same time they have a serious and grave dutv. They should preserve the dignity and orderliness and inipartiality which must attach to their tribunals if confidence in them is to be retained and justice 1o be done, and not brought into disrepute. The conduct of oue of the parties has been such as to make any approach to the attaining of these staudards impossible. What good purpose eould b'e served by the issue of the writ aslced for when it seems eertain that if the decisions of the authority are not approved of, there will be a return to the allegations and conduct which hitherto brought the Tribunal into disrepute and preventqd its due functioning. Tlie circumstances are such and tlie conduct of plai-ntiff and its nominee has been such, that the discretion ivcsted in the Gourt should not be exereised'in plaintiff !s favour and the writ is refusecl and tlie claim dismissed. ' Employers' Offer "Tlie position, therefore, is that on aceount of the conduct of the nnion's representative oK the authority, this' body is nnable to fvmction until eertain

assuranees are given. In view of the, above circumstances, we are prepared to meet representatives . of your uuion to -.discuss auy matters wliich are opeu for discussiou, only on tlie following eonditions: (a) That the national council of the union withdraws its ban en the working of overtime and gives an assuranee that in future it will comply wit'h the terms of tlie maiu order, aud (b) that tlie union 's representatives on tlie authority will comply • with the requirenients of the chairman - of the authority as outlined in the. decision of the Chief Justice. In making-" this offer we reiterate that a- number of matters' referred to in your lether afe already properly before the authority for determination and these, of couT^se, must be exeluded from any diseussian between us. "We sliall be glad if you will place this letter before your national executive at tlie meeting called for Tuesday next "(August 16)." Legal TJltimatuni # ' On the same day (August 12), the following letter was sent to the secre-' tary of the union by Messrs. S. G. Stephenson and Anyon, barristers and solicitors: "We have been advising the New Zealand Waterside Employers t Association in connection with the action of your union in imposing a ban on the working of overtime in many of tlie ports of New Zealand. We have seen a copy of the letter written on June 27 by the secretary of your Auck land branch to the local manager of the commission, announcing the branch '9 decision in refusmg the work overtime. We have also perused a copy of your letter of August 10, recording a resolu tion of your nationa.1 council 'to ipa pose a total, restriction on overtime'.'' In our opinion the resolutions of r,hi Auckland branch* and of the nationa1 council, were elenr breaclies of clause 47 of the main order of the commission and further, by reason of the decision of the meeting of the national council on July 12. and 13, your union in its corporate entitv, must be held legal ly responsible. We therefore have been instructed to request your national executive at its meeting to be held on Tuesday next, to take immediate steps to revoke the decision to impose a total restriction on the working of overtime and to give an undertaking that the same or similar decisions will not be repeated. "