DELAYS ON WHARVES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 53, 31 January 1938, Page 2

DELAYS ON WHARVES

POSITION AT WELLINGTON. INQUIRY TO BE MADE. WELLINGTON, Jan. 29. Recent hold-ups on the Wellington, wnterfx'ont, due in one instance to watersiders refusing to unload fruit from the Rangatira because of rain, and in the second case to wharf labourers ceasing work during the loading of chilled beef on the Port Campbell because of a dispute over . the tea interval clause, were the subject of outspoken comment at Thursday night’s meeting of the Wellington Harbour Board, when a resolution that a full inquiry be made and the result discussed in open meeting was carried. Alleging that the watersiders had not played the game, several members expressed strong criticism of their tion, contending that it was unjustified and likely to lead to the ruin of hundreds of small, struggling farmers. It was stated that the watersiders had broken the terms of their agreement, resulting, in one instance, m the almost complete loss, through deterioration, of a fruit shipment from Central Otago, and a heavy loss to the growers. Hon. W. Nash, and Mr C. H. Chapman, M.P., contended that no decision could be reached until the case for the men was heard. Mr M. A. Eliott said the situation had been discussed informally that morning, and it was too serious to go on without comment. There were three salient points. 011 the one hand the Farmers’ Union had complained about the treatment of primary produce by the Watersiders on its arrival at the Wellington wharves, then there was the statement that the matter was outside the province of the board, and, thirdly, there was the statement by the secretary of the Watersiders’ Union that the men had been unjustly treated. Here were three different opinions, and it was in the interests of all concerned that the matter should be thoroughly investigated and. a full, fair, and impartial statement made and discussed by the board in open meeting. The good name of the harbour was also at stake, and it was of paramount importance that the board should investigate every aspect. There was also the even more' important aspect that hundreds of small farmers and fruitgrowers had been adversely affected through the action of the watersiders in refusing to handle perishable produce. FACTS OUTLINED. Mr W. M. Price, in explaining the facts, said that the men refused to unload fruit from the Rangatira because it was raining heavily. “It is true the weather was very wet, but at the Lyttelton steamer wharf there is good shelter,” lie said. “The Rangatira had 1400 cases of soft fruit to land which had been railed from southern districts. There was only one and a half hours’ work to unload this and under cover, but though the men were under pay all the time they de-. clined to work because it was raining. The result was that the fruit was carried back to Lyttelton to be landed on the return on Wednesday. “With the Awatea from Sydney, because of rain, the men again declined to work discharging mails and luggage, and the passengers had to handle a lot of their own personal effects, assisted by Harbour Board permanent men and the crew.” The fact that the hard work of many small growers had gone for nothing was to be deplored, said Mr .T. R. Barrel - . Rain did not prevent them harvesting their crop. Mr Barrer cited the case of a Wairarapa grower who had paid £BOO in wages for the harvesting of a crop. It was unfaiT that he or anyone similarly placed should be put in the position of losing the reward of his labour. That a few showers or even continuous rain should prevent the unloading of fruit, was intolerable, more so as the wharf labourerers were paid for waiting time. “It is time this sort of thing was ended,” said Mr Barrer. “Here we have one section of the community receiving good pay and refusing to work, and yet we have no apparent remedy.” CASE FOR WATERSIDERS. “There cannot be two opinions but that our primary produce must be dispatched without delay and in the best condition, and anything which tends to interfere with this smooth working should be investigated,” said HOll. W. Nash. However, lie felt that the board should be fair to the men and hear their side of the case before condemning them. He had gathered his information from a newspaper report, and it seemed that trouble had arisen over the tea interval. The men had been condemned. They might have been wrong, but he considered it only right that their case should be heard. “Watersiders are just as much primary producers as farmers, because unless you have someone skilled in handling farm produce so that it can reach the consumer then it has no value,” said Mr Nash. Mr Morrison; I don’t argee. Mr Nash remarked that there must surely be some way of settling such disputes 011 the spot. 011 the evidence before them it appeared that the chilled beef loading had been held up by the men, but he hoped that a fuller investigation would bring other facts to light. These facts should be made fully known. SEEKING INFORMATION. Mr W. L. Fitzherbert, in reply to Mr Nash’s remarks, stated that 110 could not see where his colleague, Mr Eliott, had in any criticised the action of the watersiders, but was merely seeking information as to whom responsibility rested with, i.e., the shipping companies or the Harbour Board. If it was the Harbour Board’s responsibility then the fullest inquiry should be made, because the country was certainly entitled to a fair deal, seeing the large amount of wages that were being paid, and in this connection the watersiders were entitled to 6s 4d an hour for working during the meal hour. He, therefore, hoped, if the matter was under the control of the Harbour Board, that, full information would be forthcoming so as to establish who was at fault Contending that the criticism levelled at the watersiders was premature until the full facts were known, Mr C. H. Chapman made it clear that he did not want to make any unncessary excuses for the men until these details were known, but he could see a whole lot of excuses for the men not. wanting to work during the meal hour. Mr Turrell said he agreed with Mr Chapman on his main contention that the discussion was premature. The matter was already being investigated bv a special committee. So far as loading chilled beef was concerned, such an industry depended for its success on promptness and regularity in handling. The whole business was worked according to a schedule. If any interference or delay occurred the whole service was thrown out.

At this stage Mr Eliott said his contention from the outset had been that a full inquiry should be held so that the board could examine the facts. His motion to this effect was carried.