CONTRACT WORK ON WHARVES

Southland Times, Issue 24232, 16 September 1940, Page 6

CONTRACT WORK ON WHARVES

OPERATION OF NEW SYSTEM WATERSIDERS’ CLAIMS EXPLAINED (United Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 14. Replying to Mr R. E. Price’s charge of inconsistency Mr T. N. Warren, a member of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union, states: “At the outset I beg to apologize to Mr Price for having apparently outraged his fine sense of literary accuracy, and hasten to extend humble thanks for his kindly advice. However, we are not dealing with theoretical or academic issues but plain facts. The union claims that all its members who assist in the work are entitled to participate in any monetary benefits that accrue from the speed-up effort. This surely cannot be construed into a complaint that the blessings of the contract do not apply to all waterside workers. It is merely the just claim of men who are compelled to work under this system. After the system has been in operation for three months we receive at the urgent request of the union what Mr Price terms a copy of the agreement. Does Mr Price imagine that the union accepts those brief notes as an agreement on a matter of such vital importance? The union claims that as a party to the contract the full facts of the agreement should be placed before it for amendment or rejection, and they protest against the arbitrary acceptance of the present so called co-operative contract. The decision reached was unanimously endorsed by 700 members at the meeting.”

On Thursday night a statement on the motion moved by Mr T. N. Warren and carried at a stop-work meeting of members of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Waterside Workers’ Union was made by the chairman of the Waterfront Control Commission (Mr R. E. Price). "The full text of the resolution moved by Mr Warren was placed before me today,” Mr Price said, "and I note it expresses a complaint because the contract system is operating, while at the same time complaining because it does not apply to all waterside workers. Surely this is inconsistency of the highest order. The resolution goes on to complain that nothing is known of the terms of the contract and the mover, Mr Warren, emphasizes this in speaking to the motion, yet concludes by foretelling the ultimate effect of the contract he claims he knows nothing about.

"Apparently mental acrobats are not enough for Mr Warren, for he has coupled with them a disregard for fact. In his answer to my reply, he admits the terms of the contract were fully discussed at the stopwork meeting at which the resolution was passed. A person so careless of accuracy and unbalanced of judgment deserves no further consideration, but for his own good he should accept advice and not again attempt it,” Mr Price said.