"A BADGE OF SHAME."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 970, 10 November 1910, Page 4

"A BADGE OF SHAME."

WORK ON IHE WHARVES, ADDENDUM 10 AN AWARD. IS PILFERING RIFE? Among the reports submitted for the House of Representathes yesterday by the Labour Bills Committee was one to the effect that in its opinion the 1 favourable consideration of ', the Government should be given to tho petition of Auckland waterside workers, vho .urged that a Koyal Commission should be set np to Bit in Auckland to take evideace which would in their opinion completely justify the status, name, and honour of the waterside workers in the Dominion.

■Jlr. Poolo (Auckland West) referred to a memo attached to the award governing waterside work at Auckland. It was, ho said, a badge of shame and dishonesty on the workers. He had no doubt but that "hlack sheep" now and again went to work on the wharves. It was • stated in the memorandum that' th« employers produced evidence showing the extent to which pilfering had increased'since 1907, Another portion of the memo, stated that if the amount of pilfering was not reduced, no other conclusion could be come to but that the workers were either parties to, or connived at, the pilfering. There was a further statement to the effect that it was hard to believe thai the union had made any serious attempt to carry out its undertaking to try and put a stop to pilfering. He would like to remind members that it was a wellknown fact that there were many expert thieves in the warehouses in London through which the goods for New Zealand passed. The workers were suffering under the handicap of an indiscreet Judge having seen fit to have had added such an absurd and libellous memo, fo an award. ■ r ' .. . .'■.

Mr., HaTdy, (Selwyn) said that he was sorry that the names of the Judges had again been brought on the floor of the House. There could be no doubt but that a-good deal of pilfering went on on the New Zealand wharves. Mr. Stallworthy: WTiat has that go) to do with it?

"Mind Your Own Business." Mr. Hardy:. If you won't addiess the Chair, would you Bβ good enough to mind your own business! \ Proceeding, Mr. Hardy said that pilfering took place in particular in con< nection with the transit of goods between Wellington and Lyttelton. ' In fact, some firms favoured insurance against loss is this regard. Some of the culprits \Yrer« receiving good pay. Mr. Miaren .(Wellingtin East) (lepra tt\t«i the ai'nchiui; uf the memo, to the award. It was based on an ex parto statement. There was a tendency when litigants were. before toe Court for them to be bullied ' and badgered. It was time that this came to an end. The memo, was a slur on, the characters of hundreds of innocent workers.' Among the waterside workers J there were hundreds of men who were just .as clean, and brave and noble as the workers in other industries.

Mr. Glover (Auckland Central) paid a tribute to the industry ■of the waterside workers. It had been proved that eome of. the pilfering took place in the warehouses at Home, on the overseas ships, and on the intercolonial ■ boats. The harbour board ■ officials were just as open to blame as the waterside workers. , Cjever Thieves at Home. Mr. Brown (Napier) said there was evi« dently a clever gang of thieves among the workers who handled the goods at Home. Ho himself had seen cases which it was impossible to tell from the outside that they had been opened. During the past seven years' only a few cases of pilfering had been brought in his district. The culprits in these cases were, he thought, not regular workers, on the wharves. He knew of no case of extensive pilfering which had been traced to have taken place in .New Zealand. ■ : . Mr. Hogan (Wanganui) held that blame should not be attached until the offenders were discovered. He did not deny that pilfering took place; still the memorandum was unwarranted. For a Court to i say that the union had ■ not '■ done enough was very improper. With, other members he would urge the Government to give the matter its very earnest consideration.

Mr. Laurenson (Lyttelton) declared that the addendum to the award was of an extraordinary nature. It was all claptrap to say that a Judpe's name should not be mentioned in the House. When a Judge so far forgot himself, Parliament had got to bring nini to book. He did not know of a case where pilfering took place hetween Wellington and Lyttelton. Out of pilferablo goods worth over ,£5,000,000, the claims were under J2IOOO. There should be legislation in_ the direc.tion of requiring waterside unions not to take on their lists more worker's than were sufficient for the industry. The Right of Work. The Hon. J. A. Millar said that membership could not be limited if preference were granted.' They could not deny the right of work. ■ ' \ . ~, Mr. M'Laren: But that is not the right Mr. Millar (proceeding) declared that the permanent .workers did well enough, but the casuals were not earning a living wage. He was not prepared to advocate preference where membership was limited. Mr. T. E. Taylor (Christchurch North) claimed that what was needed was that Labour should have better representation in Parliament. It was not likely after /the discussion that another tag of a similar nature would be added to an award for some time to come. The memo, was a wanton, insult to a body of ■men who were the equal of the Judge in all respects with the exception of his. legal knowledge. . Mr. Arnold (Dunedm Central) also expressed the opinion that the matter should engage the. attention of the Gov. ernment. . The report was then adopted.