BOARD AND UNION.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1993, 26 February 1914, Page 6

BOARD AND UNION.

PREFERENCE MEN.

FIGHT FOR FAIRPLAY.

ON THE WATERFRONT.

WRANGLE AT HARBOUR BOARD.

Conditions of labour on the wharves were discussed at great length by tho Wellington Harbour Board last night. Mr. C. W. Jones had a notice of motion on the order paper as follows: "That, labour • foremen be instructed that all members of the Waterside Workers' Union who joined before December 9 last are entitled to preference, it' suitable for the work, even though they did not,, actually work . for tho board before'./ih'at date." The chairman (Mr. B. Fletcher) ruled the motion out of order on tho ground that before it could bo put the resolution on tho books of the board giving "preference only to men-who had been employed by tho board prior to December 9 would have to be rescinded. He had advised Mr. Jones of.this as soon as the notice of motion came to hand. The motion ■ could not now be put except - with the unanimous consent of the-: board.

Captain Watson objected, and the motion was. not put. Mr. ,-M. Cohen also had a notice of motionreferring to work on the wharves on the-order paper, but ho was absent, and-at his telegraphed' request, consideration of it was postponed until next meeting. ..•'•■ The Union Case. A deputation ■ representing- the executive of the Wharf Labourers' Union (Arbitrationists) waited on,the board, and through Mr. E., J. Jones, one of their members, made certain complaints, and finally submitted' a- request to bo permitted to examine the pay-sheets of the board for two specified weeks. Air. Jones said that the executive had every reason to believe that the..Arbitrationists, or a. number of them; were not receiving the treatment which they should, receive in accordance with the resolution passed by the board durinc tho early etages of the strike. It was a daily occurrence, for men to come to the secretary or members of .the executive with a complaint that they were riot being treated fairly. Ho had had a list tabuAc ° i ° wAg<? ? some d received ror the weeks ending January, 20 and i'ebruary'3. 'From this it would appear that.some-men.who had',remained on strike untiUhe.very last, and bad taken a very,prominent part in the strike,.had been receiving much more work than those forward to-help to keep the port open. . He.admitted that some men entitled to preference were given

work in the mornings, but usually they ivero.given jobs that only lasted ail hour or two.. And ; while ex-strilcers were given steady work at .which they could earn;up:to-£B-and;£4 a week, Arbitrationists failed-to see why they, were not allowed to earn moro than £1 a week. - , Specific Casas. ~Mr. Jones,, continuing,, cited-epecific instances of ex-strikers who for the week ending January 20' earned .wages as follow :-£4,05,.8d., £3 12s. 6d., U ss. 3d., £3 10s. lid. For the same period men who had worked duririfc. tho striko had earned 11s. 4<1., Bs. Bd., 8s 2d , 12s. 5d., £1 2s. Bd., 10s. Bd. For the ;week ending. February 3, various exstrikers (named) ■ earned £3 os. 4d.. £3 2s. 4d., £3 ss. '2d., £3 2s. 4d., £3 2s. 4d., £3 11s. 5d., £4 lla. Bd., £4 Is. 3d., £3 18s. 5d., £4 25., £4 4s. Id., £4 17s. 2d., £2'3s. lid}, £3 2s. 4d., £3 185..3d., £4 16s. 4d. Some of the men named did not appear to have joined tho union, .for he coul'lnot find their names, on the union;roll." In the samo period, Arbitrationists had eariied £1 16s. 2d., £2 10s. 9d., £2 12s. 7dr, and £1 os. Bd. The chairman asked Mr. Jones where ho, had got'his figures.. , ■Mγ. Jones replied that he would not say, jbut' it had been difficult to get them. The fact, was that tho old hands were .geUiug the best jobs, wore getting practically all the steady constant work in the sheds, and he failed to see-why nipn who went on strike should get jobs at which they could earn over £3 a week, while men who were entitled to. preference could earn only Bs. Sdv, n Some'ten days previously the executive had asked to bo allowed to peruse, the pay-sheets of tho Harbour Board for two particular weeks. This-request was refused, by the chairman's''instructions. He would repeat this-request on behalf of the executive. Ho believed that the board's officers were trying to comply with the preference rule, but he, and the executive with: him, felt that something must be radically wrong somewhere, and if they had an opportunity of ' perusing paysheets they might be able to supply the.labour foremen with such information as would enable them to set matters right. :■■

Mr. Fletcher said that some of. the .trouble -was caused by the failure of ■the union, to ; supply to the board a roll of : members until as late as February 3. He claimed that the resolution of the board, that men who had w,orkqd for the board prior to December 8 were to get preference, had been strictly carried out since they had had the union roll. The Preference Rule. Mr.' Jones urged tliat the rules should be altered to' inako tho preference applv to,all men who'had worked.on the waterfront'during the striko, irrespective of whether they had been.in theemploy of tho Harbour Board or not. This was the effect of the resolution passed by tho Shipping Companies. Vfhcii tho Arbitrationists first came to work on tho wharves they went to work where they were ordered to go, and it happened that many of them never were employed by tho Harbour Board. He would urgo that men ' who had brought their wives and .families and made homes in Wellington in the belief that they would got preference on tho wharves, honest straight men, who had worked in the critical time, when men wero urgently required, -should all get preference over ex-strikers. If tho board would grant permission to the executive- to peruso the pay-sheets of the board,' they would have definite information on which they could act. The Chairman's Answer. The chairman said that many Arbitrationists had lost their regular employment under tho Harbour Board by absenting themselves from the wharves for long periods.. This caused gangs to bo broken up and. disorganised work generally. These men camo back and expected to bo put back on regular work straight away. Of course anyone familiar with conditions on the wharves knew that this could not be done. He read other figures to show -that average, .earnings of Arbitrationists iii the employ of'tha board during the week ending January 20 was £3 2s. 5d., and of ex-strikers £2 76. During the weok ending February 3 the averages wero £2 12s. for preference men, £2 11s. for ex-strikers. He wished to say thatho -was just as anxious to do the .fair thing, by preference men as anybody c'ouldvbe. A committee had been set up which would inquire into anv complaint made, aiid instructions had been given to the labour foremen to carry out the obligation which the employers were undo>. If tlie union would mako specific

charges, every charge would be investigated by the committee. Not Advocates for Incompetence. Mr. M'E\vaii:.Do.,you contend that preference should be given to these men irrespective of their ability? Mr. Jones: No, sir.. I.don't tlunk any member of the executive would advocate that if a man is incompetent he should bo kept en, but r.e say that the average men in the Arbitrationists arc, just as good as the average men employed on the wharves before tho strike. i wish it to .bo distinctly understood that if a man. is not efficient,, or is a waster, wo aro not here to advocate that ho should bo kept on this wharf.. Mr. M'Ewan: I hopo Mr. Jones does not contend that the proper persons to measure tho ability of tho men are not the board's officers, but tho executivo of tho union? Mr. Jones: I certainly do not. Wo don't wish to olajm that wo are the only persons who know; or oven that we. do know, when a man is doing a fair thing, but I. think thp work dono by Arbitrationists has been good. Mr. M'Ewan: Do you contend that men employed.by tho shipowners prior to December 8 should be now given work by the Harbour Board? Mr. Jones: I say on behalf cf the executive that we believ<y that when the Harbour Board wants men, preference men should have first claim, but also that men, who worked anywhere on the waterfront during tho strike should be employed before ex-strikers. Mr. Fletcher: That is not tho resolution of tho board. ' . j Mr. Jones said there were many men who joined the union prior to December 9 : who had not worked for the board before that time, and ho claimed that these men should be preference men. Mr. E. W. Jones said he, wished , to congratulate "his namesake" on the manner in which ho had presented his case. He himself had wished to make a , similar speech earlier; but had been ruled out. A ' Question of "Average." Mr. C'obbe asked: whether the figures quoted disclosed the average conditions of thiiif,j on tho wharf. Mr. E. J. Jones said that to a very great extent this was.so.' Ex-strikers got tho most regular work and the best pay. And ho .claimed that Ihe work doiio by the Arbitrationists btiforo the. strikers came back was just as good as .that done now. He admitted that Arbitrationists had been more regularly employed recently. Mr. Fletcher quoted from figures supplied to Mm, to show that preference men in recent weeks had received a higher average rate of pay than exstrikers since- tho union had supplied tlip board with a union roll.' • Ho stated that tho work of the board was costing a great deal, more now than it had cost before tho strike.

Mr. Cobb'e said that he received a considerable quantity of goods over tlie wharves,- and he was glad to be able to say that since the ■ Arbitrationists had been handling the cargo he had not bad a single case of pilferage. Mr. Fletcher-: You have been fortunate. . ■■■-■'■ Cause of Increased Cost. Mr.E. J. Jones said part of the increased cost of work was , due to the aotion of certain sections of men who did their best to hinder and tantalise arbitrationists at their work. .He had been informed that some men.had to spend a lot of tinio rectifying" acts of mischief of this kind. ! ... ... Mr. Fletcher: I can't admit that. : Mr. Jones: I can name.men who will "ive you all .the information you want about it\ ' Mr. Flptcher: Either this is true or it is not tnio. If it is. true it, casts a gravo reflection upon, the boards officers. If you will' give us specific charges, then, we can deal with tho officer who is allowing this sort of thinp; to go on. \lt_is a very serious matter if tho.board's'time is wasted in this way. Mr.. Jones': I still say that it is so, and I will bring tlie men before you to prove , it. . , .'

Mr. Danicll thought tneni <Vas an'unnecessary arriount.of friction between tho board and tho men. He could sep no objection to the executive having access to tho pay-sheets to get the,definite information which th'ev. sought, i In reply to Mr. Wright, Mr. Jones said he had known numerous cases of men coming within tbe board's definition of preference men being refused employment.

"Competence" Again. Mr. Hindinarsh said tho labour foremen nrust not bo compelled to tako Arbitrationists if they were.less competent than ox-strikers. "Hβ. asked Mr. Jones whether it was contended that au incompetent man should bo taken because he was a preference man. . ' Mr. Jones: If you have an exceedingly, competent ex-striker on the one hand, and an exceedingly incompetent Arbitrationist qn the other, I would say that tho exceedingly competent man should be taken oil,' but,l don't think that is generally the position.' I think the average; qualifications of the new men and the old men are about equal. Mr. Fletcher: . Tho shipping companies employ, the competent men. Mr. .Jones, said the companies recognised the preference men. Mr. Fletcher: They don't employ them. S . . Mr. Jones denied this'emphatically. Mr. Hindmarsh suggested that the reason for the increased cost of labour on the wharf was due mainly to the employment of incompetent men. Mr. Jones suid this would be tantamount to saying '.that the new men were not so competent as tho old men, and this .he did not admit. Thero were oilier reasons for the increased expense. There was a certain amount of boycotting : of new nien. . Strikers "loafed on" new men, and retarded work in order ' to make' things unpleasant for them. There was not tho harmony among the men that should exist. New men could not go peaceably to their work in the mornings. There was'friction all the .time.. "If you put on one Arbitrationist among six ex-strikers," he said, "tho man will suffer hell upon earth. But I guarantee that if you put one striker among forty Arbitrationists ho will be treated fairly and decently." This, he said, showed the. state: of affairs existing, which' retarded the work. Mr. Fletcher: Have you complained to the wharfinger about this? Mr. Jones: Yes, I have spoken to the wharfinger about it on more than one occasion. • ■ Under the Surface. After the deputation withdrew, ■ .Mr. .A. V. Halo Monro, the wharfinger, said ho had done all ho could to restore harmony between tho twosets of men on tho wharf, and ho had dealt pretty strictly with cases of misconduct coming under his notice. ■ If jiliie friction still ivent on it must be well below the surface, because he made a- daily round of tho wharves and the sheds, and he heard nothing of it. Some of the now lipids, he said, were not up to the mark. . Mr. Fletcher said lie was on the wharves daily and ho saw nothing of tho friction alleged to exist. If it was going on, then it'should be stopped. Mr. Jones: You can't; stop it. What Objoctlon? \ Mr.. Nathan: What is tho objection to allowing the executive to peruse the pay-sheets? Mr. Fletcher: Would you allow "them to examine your pay-sheets? Mr. Nathan: It they wished, certainly. 'Mr Fletcher: I doubt it very much. However, it is a matter for the board to decide. Mr. Nathan: I think we should give the pay-sheet. No harm can be done. Mr. Fletcher: No harm! It is el re-

flection on the officers of the board. I Mr.- K. A. Wright thought that the charges made should bo investigated) and that the executive should- have ac-. cess to the pay-sheets to j*et the infor- i illation they desired. Grave reflections had, been east on the- officers of tho Board and it would serve no goad purpose to stitlo inquiry, ; ' Tho Labour Foreman, Mr. Glennic, chief labauf foreman, referred to several of the eases cited of ex-strikers earning Jiig'h wages. The fact was that the period was ii busy one, and experience;! men were required for certain work. : One man nansctl was not an ex-striker. He was prepared to stand or fall by the pay-sheets, which would sliow that preference men got better wages than ex-«trikers. He did not know of cases of friction or disturbance on the wharf whieh were not .detected, and if ft case was reported ho took a hand in it at once. Tho increastd cost of labour on the wharf represented a /loss to the board of £1000 in three mouths, and this was duo to the fact that the men employed were slower in handling cargo, Mr. Nathan: Area't they improving? Mr. Glennio: Some of theni arc. Some of them will never improve, Mr. Fletcher said the work was not being done so expcditiousl/. and more men were being.employed to do it. The increased 'cost was very serious. Another matter was the number oi' claims mnde against the board and also ngainst ships because of inexperienced men dispatching goods to wrong destinations. Mr. Daniell asked whether there was evidence of disloyalty or ifieempeteiieo among the new' workers. Mr. Glennio: There is a good deal of incompetence, but 3to disloyalty as far as I know. Mr._ Hiudmarsh suggested that a committee should bo set wp to report upon tho whole matter. Motion and Amentjment. Mr. Nathan moved tliat the executive of the union be allowed to peruse tho pay-sheets for any two\weeks they asked for, provided an ■ officer of the board wero present during the inspection. Mr. Daniell seconded tho motion. Mr. Fletcher opposed the motion. If tho proposal was ntafie by any other union it would have- be*n refused at once. Two shipping companies had laughed t<? scorn a request to supply pay-sheets to the union. -Mr. Cobbe moved an qmeudrnetlt to the effect..that the union he.supplied with certified copies of t!#-; pay-sheets for any two wrekstho union might specify. ■■Captain Watson seesridedtho, amendment, which was carried by six votes to four. . . . Tlio votiiig. on the amendment was as follows:— '..,-,. For: Messrs. Cobfc, 'Daniell, Hindmarsh, Fletcher, M'Ewan, Wafsfin. Against:; Messrs. Kermedy, MacFarlane, Nathan, W-rfeht,' . . ■ •Tho' above division mar be'misleading. The members who Voted "No" did so because they w-e.re in favour of giving the executive access to the original pa'y-sheets., ....