The Dominion. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1914. WORK ON THE WATERFRONT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1994, 27 February 1914, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1914. WORK ON THE WATERFRONT.

The discussion at the Wellington Harbour . Board's meeting-oft thfc wharf labour problem shows that a state of affairs still Agists on, the waterfront which is far from satisfactory. ' Tho trouble may' not be so acute as.it was a month or so ago, or at any rate its surface manifestation is not so emphatic; but a letter published in yesterday's Dominion indicates that intimidation of a more or k-ss open character i< still going on, and it is high time that more deeided actios was taken, to put an end to the • friction and unrest which arc preventing the work of the port from king carried on to the best advantage. The organisation, and control of wharf labour. are matters in which th; whole community is interested, as well as the employers and workmen immediately concerned. In tho present in-stance-important questions of principle are involved,, and the public will not bo satisfied with any policy which fails to do justice to the men who kept the port open during a very, serious industrial crisis. Tho attitude which the chairmnn of the Harbour .Board (Mil. Fletcher) has adopted, throughout the trouble has given rise to much adverse eriticis-fflj and he has only himself to blame for the fact that there is a widespread feeling that he is not- in full sympathy with the accepted policy of preference to the Arbitra-tionists-. This impression has been intensified by his remarks at Wednesday's meeting of the Harbour Board, when-he acted rather as an advocate of the ex-strikers' point of view than as an impartial judge endeavouring to arrive at the_actual -facts after hearing and weighing the evidence of both sides. As chairman of the board Mn. Fletcher occupies an important public position, and he ought to approach the question, not as an advocate for either of tho parties, but from the point of view of the com* rnunity as a whole. Mr. E. J. Joses, 'who acted as spokesman for tho Afbitrntionists, made out a strong case, which was not satisfactorily answered by Mn. Fletcher, and it certainly demands the most careful consideration. Briefly stated, his contention was that the Arbitrationists were not receiving the treatment which they were entitled to get in accordance with the resolution passed by. the hoard during the early stages of the strike. He did not claim that Arbitrationists should be given preference of employment- irrespective of their ability to do the work required of them, nor did he insist that iaco-tn-

patent men should bo kept on; but lit" did contend thai the average men in the ranks, of the Arbitrationists were just as good as the average men employed on the wharves before the strike, and that competent men who kept tins work going during tlio crisis should.receive .preference over ox-strikers. "This position is Cjuite unassailable—indeed, no serious attempt was made to question it dttring_the discussion; the main point at issue being whether the Ai-bitra-tionists are as a matter of fact getting preferential treatment. Mr. Jokes quoted a number of specific instances Which went to show that ex-strikers were, earning much better wages than men who worked during the strike, He further stated that the old hands were getting the best jobs, and practically all the steady work in the sheds. If this is so, the puMic will agree with M.B-. Jojjes's assertion that "something must be radically wrong somewher-e," The reply of Mn. Fletcher to the case put forward by Mk. Jones was far from ..convincing.. Ho relied upon a set of figures which differed entirely from those upon which Mr. Jqsjes based his case, and he contended that preference men in recent weeks had received a higher rate of pay than ex-strikers since the board liad Ijeen supplied with a union roll. The matter cannot, of course, be left in its present, position, and it ought not td be impossible to draw .up && authoritative table which would disclose the exact state of affairs.

Tie perfectly obvious and proper way of settling the point in dispute is by means of an examination of the board's pay-sheets. This is what Mb. Jones asks .for, and the objections raised by Mjt. to this course are of an extremely fliitisy character, .his aaswer. to Me. Nathan's question as to what objection there is to allowing the men)' hers of the union exocutive to peruse the pay-sheets being quite beside the mkrk.- He asked if Mr. Nathan would allow them to examine his pay-sheets; but it must be plain to every unbiased «iind that the nh fairs pi a public body like the Harbour Board stand in a very different position as regards the. question of publicity to those oH a- private business Tush. The point- is too clear to need argument. As a matte* of fact it is difficult to understand why in the circumstances there should be the slightest objection to art exam* fnatic-B of the pay-sheets. Me; Nathan's proposal that tho executive of the union bo allowed k> peruse the pay-sheets in the presence of an officer of the board was perfectly fair and reasonable. It is only right that the Arbitration executive should be given adequate facilities for establishing their case, and the general public is also entitled to know what the real facts are. Moreover, the board itself *must have Reliable data at its disposal before.it can be expected to eoinc t<> a just decision on tho matters laid before- it. The com-pkint-s of the Arbitrationists are deserving of the most careful and sympathetic consideration, both as regards regularity of work and amount of pay; and the strictest vjgjla-n-.ee should be maintained for tho purpose of firmly and effectually suppressing anything in the nature of violence or intimjtetio.ji. The new man still appear to be harassed and -insulted at times, and the board owes it to the comnjnnity to see that to far ns it is concerned those wl-i-a attempt, to practise this intimidation are debarred from employment on the waterfront altogether.