DRUNK WITH POWER

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 128, 16 June 1937, Page 4

DRUNK WITH POWER

Seamen's Advpcate on Union Greed RIGHT TO HANDLE CARGO Not watersiders and employers, bnt watersiders and seamen, staged the principal dispute when the Dominion awaTd for watersiders came before tbe | Arbitration Court for ratification at Christchurch. The question was whe- ■ thej seamen should be permitted to work cargo. Aceording to the seamen's award, all work in conneetion with the handling of cargo may be regarded as part of a seaman's duty, whereas the watersiders ask that if members of their union are available seamen should not be employed in the loading or diseharging of cargo, i On behalf of the Seamen's Union, Mr F. P. Walsh described the watersiders proposal as "body snatching," while Mr J, Roberts, who appeared for the Watergide Workers' Union, aceused the seamen of wage cutting in collaboration with the smaller shipowners. "Since the electiou of the present Government people have got drunk with power," declared Mr Walsh. "Thoy are using recent industrial legislation for their own selfish advantage in a way the Government never iutended. They are going in for largescale body-snatching, grabbing work l'rom members of other unions. The iight that is growing np in New Zeai».nd to-day is not between employers and workers, but, unfortunately, between union and union, ea to wbat work shall be done by each. Certain unions are outN to filch work from others. ' 1 "Recent legislation has made some people greedy," continued Mr Walsh, • and encouraged them to step over into other people 's pastures. The clause the watersiders ask for is in direet confi'ci with a longstanding clause in our award." Mr Walsh quoted statutory authority in support of his contention that the discharge of cargo was one of a soa-' man's duties, if he were called upon to do sd. The clause in the waterside workers agreement to which he ob-. jected, that prohibiting the handling of cargo by seamen, was contrary, therefove, to statute. Often it was necessary or safer to employ a ship's crew to discharge cargo, particularly in small vessels at outports. Crews of such vessels would lose about £10 a month each if debarled from such work. The Court announeed that it would wiihbold its jtidgment on the point.