WHARF TROUBLES

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2153, 20 May 1914, Page 8

WHARF TROUBLES

EMPLOYERS AND THE PREFERENCE >■ WORKERS UNION PRESIDENT REPLIES TO MR. FOSTER ■ Mr. J. L. RadeliiTo, president of the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union, made the following' ■ statement to ft Dominion* reporter in reply to Mr. W. If. Foster's remarks concerning the priority problem on she Wellington wharves: —

"Air. W. G. Foster, chairman of the Kffiployers', Farmers', and Citizens' Detei'iea Committee, iu which ~is incorpor* a tod the Employers' Association, tins laid his views in regard to the preierenco to corkers problem ou tho Wellington wharves betore the public, but itwould be interesting to know where hoobtained his information. It must, be understood that any conversations which have taken place bfetween Mr. Kennedy and myself nave been of a confidential nature, and any information whinli Air, Foster has obtained must therefore havo conic through Mr. Kennedy. 1 havo only had one conversation with Mr. Foster in my life. His statements were farfetched, and not in accordant with fact. Inter alia,, Mr. Foster said that on tho suggestion of the Minister ho mfldo an appointment with Air. Jones and my-

self, and that we threo discussed the affairs of the waterfront generally for about threo hours.

"Before we left that conference, Mr. Foster expressed his. surprise at tho condition of aifairs, and stated that lie had befiii much impressed with wljnt wc had tokl him. lie admitted that ho had wrongly judged the men, who had been shabbily treated by not having constant employment, when these same men had sacrificed their homes and positions to keep the port open. Mr. Foster said that he hatl been ignorant of the conditions under which these preference men were selected for employment by the shipping companies, and he said that they should havo had preference oi work as agreed upon. Mr. Foster also said thai hp had had every confidence in Captain Hvatis and Sir. It. Fletcher, : members of the Complaints Committee, but he now saw things as they really were for the first- time, and" his eyes had been opened. The chairman said that he was pleased

svit-li the interview, ami would call the Defence Committee together with tho object of endeavouring to improve matters on the- waterfront.

"I explained to Mr. Foster that, tho preference men had come- from tho country as cargo workers and not as expert engineers or sailors. They eo-uld not lib" expected to rig gear •or drive a winch. This has been expected of them nil along. When complaints were sent to the Complaints Committee, thev were of four kinds, viz.: "(1) Insulting languago, and tho preference men being made targets for piwses of coal thrown by old wntersidcrs. "(H) Insulting, abusive, obscene, and most disgusting fulsome remarks from foremen who engaged the preference meii. "(3) Incompetency. "(•J) No work being available far tho men who had made complaints." Are the Meti Incompetent? Continuing, Mr. Radcliffo said: "It is unnecessary for.: mo to deal with all these charges, kit I. shall explain how tho charge of incompetency is brought about. For tlw sake of argument,' I will take the ease of tho Union Company's foreman. .He selects"the men for their work. A number of men are put on a job, some of whom are prefer* enco men. Preference men who have not been selected then complain that they have f.iceiL overlooked, and noi-i----prefcrcoce men given a job. This complaint gees before tlio Complaints Committee, but as soon as it is lodged tho man who made tho chargo is a market! man iottg before there is time to hear thtt case. No work is offered him till his complaint has been heard, and. after that lie gets littlo or no work on tho wharves. The question of incompetency is a ver.v sore point with preference men. It has been known for a foreman to ask a. preference man before the Complaints Committee how many ways he can shorten a sling. The man says that ho can only shorten it one way, and ho is thus forced to admit before this tribunal of experts that he is incompetent, as they know of two or more ways of shortening a, sling. So tlio gag goes on and the men who complain ar-e turned-down every time. I In fact, after they hava retired from tlio room they have never been told the verdict in one single instance. A request has been made by tho union to bo renrej suited at meetings of the Complaints 'Committee. The only reply wo have received was as follow: —'With regard to your -request that a member of your executive should be present, my committee cannot agree to his being in tho room, but would like on© to he in .attendance in ease his presence is specially required.' I ask, Does this savour of fairness?"

The Dcfcnco Committee. With reference to tho recent meeting between the .executive <f the Wharf Labourers' Union and the Wellington Employers', Citizens', and Farmers' Do. fence Committee, Mr. Radelifte.said: — "Tho following invitation was received from Mr. W.'lVyor, secretary. of tho i Employers' Federation: "I am instructed to ijdvke you that tho executive of the Wellington Farmers' and Citizens' Bofence Committee will moot, at the rooms of tho New Zealand Employers' Federation oil Thursday at, 10.30 a.m., for tho purpose of considering the question of complaints re work on tho wharves. The executive will bo pleased to meet any members of your executive who may desir" to nttenrl the meeting, so that thfi fullest consideration may be given to any representations that your union mav make. . . . "This invitation was accepted." s.aid Mr. Rndcliile, "and all tho members of - tho oxectttive attended. On entering tha room, however, wo were surprised to sco not only the Defonco Committee, but n number of employers- and nlso tho Union Company's foreman. _ Before tho nroceedinirs began, I objected to the foroI man being present, but tho chairman j (Mr. Fetor) ovpr-rufod mv objection by [ saving that the meeting did not proposes I gom? into complaints, bl't that they would.like to have a friendlv talk over matters. I requested that tho Pr»ss f-hould be present, hut this was also over-ruled, the chairman stating that the proceedings were not for mihlicaf.'on. Notwithstanding this, the Defence Committee had a shorthand reporter present, and they published their version of the proceedings, ami not ono item of what thn ntiion executive su»<*cst"d was included. I ask, Is thv» British fair plflV or a breach of eonfulsnco? The offer of representation on the Complaints Committe to tho tin ion executive by the Defence Committee was refused 'on the ground that I would first require to consult members of tho miion-

, "At. iliat particular mtelinq it, was stated that tlieri* bad been 1.30(1 now hands on tho wsiteiTivmi who bad expressed their willivmncs t<> fonmin if f.ltoy we;v ! fairlv treated. Tin's number is- to i>bont. 300 or 350, Tlioso who Ij"c1 qouo back to ilio country swo classed as wastors by a enetnin speaker, ami be also said tluit. tte nilv was Wlter without lliptn. 1 stro>i«ly obieotoil to tlu'Sß remarks. and called ujKsn She chairman to haw the speaker withdraw llu> words. The chairman and o liiiniber of the mwlcynrs Eiintifd sarcasticaßr whilst-1 iaijsted that the words

be withdrawn, and tho chairman saM that they must not he taken literally. Question of Responsibility. "I see liv tho published report that tho Defence Committee passed a resolution to the effect that as the union had disclaimed further responsibility in the matter of assisting men entitled to priority of engagement, the employers would look after their interests. ) would like to explain that tho reason for tho mi ton disclaiming responsibility to obtain priority of engagement tvns that tlve Employers', Citizens', and Farmers' J)e- : fenco Committee undertook lay agreement to give preference to those men ■ who joined the union prior to December 8, H>W.. If nil the shipping companieshad anted like the Shaw, Saull and Albion Company Ims done, then there would not have been any grounds for complaint. "With reference to that register containing the names of men entitled to priority being inaccurate," continued Mr. Itiidcliffo, "I can tell tho public that that very register was compiled by the employers' secretary prior to the affairs being taksn over by the union. Up till this lime the employers had ; control of tho union business, and their officiotistiess I p&rsonnlly resented, find practically told them to mind their own i business. When wo took ovei) thfs register it consisted of a number of Mmcs written on a sheet of foolscap. "With reference to Hie complaints and tho manner in which they are investigated. I would like to mention_ ii case that I am specially interested in. I brought under the notice tif Mr. Kennedy, manager of the Union Company, a chargo of disgustingly filthy language which was used by one of liis foremen to a number of employees. I requested that an answer bo soist to »n conoeriiintt this particular case., and this is what I received verbally: "I'lmt Mr.' Kennedy preferred to believe his foreman's word before mine."'