AN ALLEGED BOYCOTT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 959, 28 October 1910, Page 5

AN ALLEGED BOYCOTT.

ANfl-AN ABSattlTE UEMWI. i mCKhmv WAiPEESIDE WORKERS/ 1 (By Telcßraph.HP resa AssoeiaUon.) '\ Auckland, October 27.' ■ Eor soine-timo past tho waterside work. ,' •ors have, when not.omplojxxl in ships, ao- v . ': oepled work in stores at Is. ail uour ngauist the Is. 3d. award rate for their ■usual occupation. . At the last sitting of tho -Arintrahon Court they applied to Mt* stores included in the W ar<l, but [ttß w» -defcrwd till,a now aW ak is apphed for next year. Later, it is slated, the New Zea i an< i SUppfalg m^y •; quired store hands to sijjn a dcokratioa jthafcthey were not memte of tho 'Waterside Union, and ttose refusing to ■«ign were discharged. V ' . . .. \ K f'-n ap i°u i. nd solicitors oa ' ■ .behalf of the Waterside-Workers' Union. . have wutten to the -New Zealand Ship! ' Ping Company complaining that an otteuyrt was being made to boycott all members' of t!ie Wateeido. \VorW- '.' : Union from working in. stores, that ono ' man refusing to'sign a declaration that he », not- «-member of the union' had ■ been Tire letter points oat that:.this unfair-and injudicious decision. • virtually means that when there is no . work at th«.waterfront the labouraa there employed will haro no right to wort m city; stores, an notion 'thatiinieht ' < lead to reprisals. . . - . ■■• . , -■ ■ .Wlien_intervieTTCd. on the matter Mr. v- l " m amger of tho New f™»nd Shipping Company, denied abso. ' niteiv that the company was boycotting ■' ■ '■" members of fte union, and denied that he had any knowledge -of any man being . discharged because, he refused to sigiL declaration that he was not a member ■ ' . of the union. :He pointed out thai -''" 5',.,™ recent- sitting of the ■■' Arbitration Coikt application'-iras made ~ by the union ,to add parties to their award embracing many firms with stores along the waterfront. The application was dismissed. One argument advanced, by the secretary of the union, was that. \■ ■ his company and other firms took men' -'''■■■-' oft the wharf to work in their'. ware- v nouses, and. thereby caused inconvenience , to shipping and financial loss to the ' .' men, who, if they were.not detained at ; tholstores at Is. an hour ceirid bo eam« : ing 16. 3d. an hour on tift wharves. In •'.'■. '■'■ order_ that there should be no repetition '■'■' of this in the feitnre Ms worefibuseman had received instructions not 'to go to '..' the wharves and employ waterside work. ■■'■[ ''; ers, and. in order to: obviate a charge ■ ! '- :; being made agp.inst the company, any man■' '■'■' applying for work should bo asked if ho : ■ ' was a waterside worker, and make adeclaration to that effect. No man had' been discharged because'he was a menh *• .■'.- ■■ ber pf the union. Two of the inch who ■ would not sign the: declaration had said ; .. "•' that they were not member's of the union. '■:' V, The compaiiy was doing,what it could to ' ■;! . satisfy the union, and.for the casual work■-,'•' ..' in the'etores non-unionists;were, if pos-.,.;:.,:';: sible, being obtained-for the reasons 1 ' " stated.'---.- ' ■ ■'■ '' ' ■'. • .1- ■ •'.■ ■.. ■'.'." •,.■ ■' :■: