A WHARF DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2117, 7 April 1914, Page 6

A WHARF DISPUTE

THE PREFERENCE AGREEMENT

ALLEGED BREACH

EMPLOYERS' COMMITTEE INVOKED

Some* conflicting stories are abroad about ail incident which occurred on tho'local wharves yesterday. Tho admitted facts are that several watersides working for. the Union Steam Ship Company suddenly terminated their employment—tho manner .of their departure is iii dispute—that.a complaint in reference to tho matter has.been lodged by the' Waterside Workers' Union with the Special Committee set up by tho employers,'subsequent to the strike, to deal with waterside affairs, and that the complaint will- be tho subject-matter of tin inquiry which is to bo conducted by the Special Committee to-day. • ■ Mr.,.W. G. Foster (chairman of the Special Committee) declined to' go into details when he was interviewed, but stated that a complaint had been entered by the Waterside Workers' Union recardjng. the .incident mentioned, that full information was being collected for purposes of investigation, and that an inquiry would be conducted by his committee to-day., Mr. Poster added that some of the men concerned had sought an interview with him, but ho preferred not to seo them 'until he heard them in the proper place. "Where there is a complaint," ho said in conclusion, "I have it investigated, . and. if. there is either an employer or an employee requiring punishment, ho gets it." One story going about was that seven watersidors were, dismissed because they had complained that they were not getting the benefit of tho preference arrangement concluded between the employers and the Waterside Workers' Union iii "respect of men who sought work' on - tho wharves not later than December 9, 1913, but a totally different"version of the affair was filrhished by Captain E. .Stott, the Union Company's Marine Superintendent, when, he was approached. by a DoMiNioK reporter. It was not trnej Captain Stott stated, that the men in question were dismissed; they knocked off,' and thereby broke their agreement. Hβ J added'that. he had not received a detailed report upon the, affair, but his information was that fault was found with-the'men for tho manner in which they" were , 'doing •'their work, and they were told that they need not come hack after five o'clock. It was.then about 1.30,: p.m., and the men knocked off straight away. Tho mention of five_ o'clock; Captain Stott remarked, applied only to that particular day, and did. hot inean that the men would be refused ■ employment in future. The Union Company, Captain' Stott further ■stated, ";ha'd (so far as he knew) received no official.communication on' the subject from. the. Waterside Workers' Union. While he was unable to furnish any more detailed information in regard to this , particular case, Captain Stott said that-there wore a number of men still employed on thcuwharf who had been therp since the beginning of November, and had not yet learned the rudiments • of '' waterside work. . Several "attempts ■ liad been made' to show that the- Union Company had failed to carry out its engagement in reference to preference, but none of them had been sheeted home.. Tho company had on>every occasion disproved the charges. There were a number of men who were only employed when better men wero not available, but this was because they did not do their work satisfactorily, and Showed no aptitude or inclination to acauire tho ricce"ssary degree of expert skill. ■.'■-.

It was very necessary, Captain Stott. went on to remark, that the men employed in waterside work should be reasonably skilled, for if an accident occurred and a man lost his life the foreman in charge of the job might get into serious trouble. Thero were about 500 Arbitrationists working on tho wharf, and when the Union Company employed about two hundred of these it was doing more than its share. It was recognised that many of the men from the country only came down te set things going again and then went back to- the' country. ■