THE PATEA STRIKE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1069, 7 March 1911, Page 2

THE PATEA STRIKE.

THE COMMISSIONERS AT VARIANCE. The chairman of the Board of Arbitrators in the recent Patea Wharf Labourers' dispute (Mr. J. W. Poynton) has received the following letter from Mr. M'Lnren, M.P.; arbitrator for the New Zealand Waterside Workers' Eriteration:— "Dear Sir,—lu the copy of your decision on the above dispute which has been sent me I find the last paragraph covers a matter which was raised by Mr. Pryor, backed up by the contention that it was necessary to have it added to any award made, i objected at the time to the matter being dealt with by our board on the ground that the only question that was submitted to the board to settle was the issue respecting overtime rate on general cargo work. Tho paragraph you have inserted in war decision reads thus:— "'The terms of the award when drawn up should not be made to apply to regular salaried employees off the shipowners. I must enter my protest against this matter being in any way dealt with m your finding, as neither my federation nor I personally have ever agreed to such question being submitted to the Board of Arbitration, or to you as umpire. ' I know that the inclusion of that provision either in an agreement or an award affecting tho port of Patea will simply place a lever in the hands of the employers which would enable them to make other clauses of the agreement, or award, of no effect as far as the members of'the Patea Waterside Workers' Union arc concerned and on that ground, and because it is not a matter that our board had to deal with, I respectfully but firmly object to it being added to your finding on the only question that was submitted for your decision, i.e., 'the overtime rate for general cargo work.'-D. M'Laren." In forwardiiiu the protest to tho Conciliation Commissioner, Mr. Poynton savs:-"When Mr. Pryor called my attention to Clause 20 of the Arlington award, and asked that a similar one should be included in the one to bo drawn up bv vou, Mr. M'Laren objected. It seemed to mo so reasonable to have snch a c'au<e that I did not lake the object on as anything but a pro forma one, becauseeven*if omitted any Court won d be bound to construe an award relating to varving hourly payments to casual labourers as having no application whatever to officials paid by the week, month, o • "ear. Mr. M'Laren, however, as will be seen bv his letter, is still opposed to the inclusion of the clause; and properly noint's out that such a recommendation not included in tho order of reference omc That being the case, you w I not act upon my suggestion in the ma tor? but esercifr your own discretion £ to whether or not the award is to contain a like provision.