ESSENTIAL WORK

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 127, 1 June 1942, Page 6

ESSENTIAL WORK

MANPOWER PROBLEMS HANDLING OF APPEALS (0.C.) WELLINGTON, this day. Of the 8155 decisions of district manpower officers regarding workers in essential industries only 70 have been the subject of appeal to Manpower Industrial Committees. Seven of these have been upheld, 44 dismissed and 19 are still awaiting hearing. Fewer than 100 workers have been dismissed for misconduct retarding production. There are now 107,000 workers engaged in 925 essential, undertakings, and further declarations of essential works are expected. This number does not include firms engaged in the building industry, many of which are on defcnce construction and are covered by special regulations.

Applications to terminate employment have been received from 4940 workers and 3215 employers, and of these 6857 have been granted, 1130 refused and 168 are still under action. Very few applications to transfer from essential to non-essen-tial industries have been granted, and then only for health or domestic reasons. The great majority of applications were in respect of transfers from one employer to another in the same industry or in the case of female workers leaving to be married. Most of the employers' applications concerned seasonal occupations.

Typical examples of cases dealt with in the transfer of workers to essential undertakings are an unemployed worker to the Railways Department, a soft goods traveller to munitions manufacture, a club steward to electric battery manufacture, a messenger, packer and laundry delivery man to metal-work a watchman to raid-shelter construction, a motor mechanic to aircraft manufacture.

In fully 80 per cent of the cases dealt with by the Wellington Manpower Industrial Committee the decisions of the district manpower officers have been upheld, stated Mr. J. Read, chairman. As an indication that no general policy had been laid down for the board except the utilisation of manpower in industry to the fullest national advantage, Mr. Read quoted two appeals involving employees of the Railways Department. In one case a locomotive driver had placed all his savings in a farm which he hoped to manage himself now that his son was on active service. However, it was decided that the maintenance of communications in time of emergency demanded his retention in the department. In another case a tracklayer applied to be released from the department so that he could enter the police force. After consultation with the departments concerned this appeal was granted.