WATERSIDE DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 227, 20 June 1921, Page 6

WATERSIDE DISPUTE

IN HANDS OF NATIONAL COMMITTEE

MORE CORRESPONDENCE

The dispute of the waterside workers with the owners of tho Alice A. Leigh over the use of skips in the discharge of coal from the vessel is to bo considered by the National Disputes Committee to-

morrow morning. It was stated on Satur-

day that tho members of the committee -would not 'be able to assemble sooner. More correspondence has passed be-

tween the parties to the dispute. A letter from the owners of tho Alice A. Leigh (G. H. Scales Pacific Co., Ltd.), 'to the secretary of tho Waterside Workers'

Union was published in The Dominion "on Saturday. To this letter Mr. J. G. Bruce, the union secretary, sent the following reply—“ln reply to your letter of June 17, pointing out 'the absolute unfairness and broach of agreement on the part of the union in holding up the discharge of the barque Alice A. Deigh merely because skips are used,’ as the dispute has now been placed in the hands of the

National Disputes Committee it is not my intention to go into the rights dr wrongs of it. "Your statement that a breach of tho

agreement has been committed by our union Is incorrect. The fact is that a “reach of the agreement and also a breach of the Marine Regulations has been committed by your company. Your impression that the desire of the union was t,o decrease tho cost of living can still continue. Protection of life end limb, however, comes first. The cost of living would be of little concern to a dead man. “There is no need to lose .£2OO per day, as our members are willing to work the vessel in the usual way by basket or grab, until the dispute is settled.” On receipt of the letter quoted above the company wrote to Mr. Bruce id the following terms: —

"We thank you for yours of June 18, ’anil we note that the union still maintains its untenable position, that its holdup is not a breach of agreement. "We will be grateful if the union will Indicate where there has been any breach oi any Marine Regulations 'because my company is quite unaware of it, and no suggestion has 'been made by any marine authority of such a thing, "Your absu’d suggestion that the union’s action is duo to consideration of Tie and limb is completely answered by The fact of the use of skips for at least uve years past in Auckland. The only objection that tho union can possibly have is that it will cheapen and accelerate the handling of coal, with the inevitable result that tho job will not take so long and the aggregate of wages will there bo-less.” SKIPS OR NO SKIPS MORE TROUBLE ON THE WHARF. (Contributed by tho N.Z. Welfare League.) Wo have been approached by some citizens and asked to make some statement of what we know of the present etoppago of work in connection with the discharge of coal from tho barque Alice A. Leigh. Having investigated the matter and heard statements that have come from both sides, we consider that the trouble is due to misunderstanding, and we have no wish to take sides in the matter of the dispute. There have appeared "ex parte" statements, and our desire is only to present for public conBideratfon a reading of the industrial * agreement covering the matter which ”■ will, wo think, be generally accepted. Section 23 of the agreement deals with "Coaling Work." It is a general section applicable to all ports. There is nothing in the agreement confining its application'to any single iport, such as Auckland. :Sub-clause (1) reads: "Discharging coal by skips, scoops, grabs, or other mechanical appliances. The number of men to be employed to be decided by the local committee.” That clearly — treats the discharging of coal by skips T- as being a recognised custom allowable in practice within the industry. Section 31 is an additional provision “ allowing the use of "skips and scoops and other mechanical appliances” in the 'I., discharging of bulk cargoes. Even if it does not apply to coal that could not nullify the provision in section 23. Section 45 is a general rule to provide tligt "the work of the employer shall always A proceed in the customary manner.” From the context it is very clear that it was intended that work should not be • stopped, but that matters of. difference between the parties should be referred to the disputes committees. It cannot be reasonably inferred that working in the "customary manner" means that em"ployers are debarred from ever introducing any new methods of industrial operations; the very fact of the words "or other mechanical appliances" being used in section 23 precludes such an interpretation by showing that the parties contemplated tho use of appliances not even specifier lly named. The reading ,-.cf section 45 in full will clearly indicate that thovwords "customary manner” are meant td define continuity work, and not methods or means of working. If the workers first stopped work on the barque named, and then had .the matter referred to the Dispute Committee. that does not appear to comply with tho provisions of section 45. Dealing with the general position, we think at right in the public interest to point out these facts, which impress us as being important. First of all, both the shipping companies and the Waterside Workers’ Union appear to interpret and apply their own agreement in a rather loose and indefinite way. If we may say so, the agreement seems to be administered in a spirit of disagreement to the injury of all concerned. Secondly, the many differences that have arisen over tho meanings of. the various . sections of the agreement seems to indicate that it would bo well in future for the parties when making an agreement to obtain tho assistance of some persons outside the industry who are not partisans. The third, and most important lesson which we. may draw from these frequent stoppages of work on our wharves is that the whole industry is badly directed, and the system of operation by casual employment entirely at variance with much-needed, sensible, business co-operation. On the plain evidence of wastefulness, want of discipline, absence of sensible cooperation, nnd genoral distrust, the present industrial system of our ports appears Io us to stand condemned. This stoppage on the Alice A. Leigh is only another little eruption of the trouble that is there all the time. Our hope is fTiat the day may come soon when all concerned will resolve that some better scheme must be introduced to secure the beat practical results.