EMPLOYEES' CASE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 86, 2 July 1943, Page 5

EMPLOYEES' CASE

APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL PAPER MILLS WORKER a t; ilb Kirn AN' situation ■ . - - i-v ; ■ The powers of employees un- • dter the caption of essential workers, and their ability to ■ combat the rights of their employe to dismiss viiem w'uin they were considered unsatisfactory, were amply remonstrated at the sitting of the Industrial Manpower Committee in the Whakatane Courthouse last Wednesday when an employee W. W. John (Mr B. S. Barry) - appealed against a previous de- • cision of the committee to auth- ' orisfe dismissal upon substantiat-•--edi grounds. The case took the form of a re~ liearing of the appeal by Wluikatanc Paper Miills for permission lo dispense with the services of the appellant. For the 1 Company, Mr E. B- Brown the Manager, stated that dismissal had been sought on a variety of -grounds,, embracing unsatisfactory "-conduct with other employees, laziness. unpunctuality, disobedience of the company's regulations and; using the company's time for purposes of -his own. Packing Records Mr Brown gave details to show that appellant's packing record was bo'ow the average and that further when working in pairs, the output for the two of which lie was one, -always was lower than that of the •-other men. Mr A. W. Winstone,, packing-room manager, gave lengthy and detailed -evidence as to the checks kept on -John's work and added that other workers had complained of his ob"vious go-slow policy. It was difficult to get that kind: of proof but it was well kno\\ v n that he was not pulling his weight. To Mr Barry witness added that a further reason lor John's dismissal was the arrival back from military camp of a previous employee •—Stowell. He admitted that some Jive other men had J>ee'n. engaged since but that owing to illness and transfers to other departments the l>acking staff was not increased. -John had flouted the regulations about smoking and had ; been warned .several times about his. personal! Ac-

tivities. Hearsay Evidence Witness under further cross.examination admitted that most of • the complaints regarding John were bas--etl upon what lie had. been told by others, with regard to his activities in connection with horse racing,, also that lie had not followed up these complaints. The chairman then said that the •only evidence which the committer cou'ld take cognisance of was that which could be sworn to as first Jiancl. Mr Brown: If the committee is going to insist on all parties coming forward and l testifying as on the basis of a criminal' proceeding, we will never be able to get the evidence. All these men are fellow men of the Union and frankly the com- - pany had' not considered it a court of this nature. We thought that all that was necessary was to satisfy the committee that dismissal was based upon reasonable grounds. I The 'chairman said that the comanittee would have' to insist upon the exclusion of hearsay evidence. The employee, working in an essential industry was not permitted to leave just Avhen he thought fit,, and in view of this the company had tlve responsibility of proving that they had,.a good case when they desired to remove him. For that reason fina fide evidence was necessary. Mr Brown: In that case we will probably only arrive at a stalemate and never get anywhere. » • Employees Case Mr Barry .for John, said that the argument tliat his client' was being put off in order, to make room for could be dismissed in view ••of the fact that since then five newmen had been put on b.y the Packing Department manager. All the evidence against John's character was based on hearsay and no one had the. right to .make 1 such state- » unless they could; be proved (Continued in next column) ]

Mr Wins tone had not. been able to support any of the grounds for his assertions. The statements with regard to the packing tallies were conflicting and varied in accordance with the size of the packages, for which no set. rule could be applied. Walter WiMiam Andrew John in evidence said that the insulting words written on the time cards which lie was accused' of having written were not in his hand writing and after accusing him first Mir Wins tone later apologised. Getting Sweet With Him ! Mr Barry: Why did he do that ? Appellant: I don't know whether he found out who had really done it or whether he was trying to get in sweet with me! He admitted that his relations with M*r Winstone had not been the friendliest. He had not been taxed with the offences until the day lie was told' lie was dismissed. Union Secretary's Evidence The next witness Thomas A. Connery,, contended that from his knowledge the company had no occasion to dismiss John. The foreman in advising men if they wanted to smoke to da s;o in a .safe place made it hard to blame some who absented from their tables occasionally. This might have been the cause of John's absence. At the: instigation of Mr K. Simpson (committee member) a lengthy inquest into the packing times of John and his. fellow 'workers tOolt j place, the hearing continuing its .weary way when Mr Winstone was !recalled. 4o give detailed' "evidence with regard to the performance of various groups of workers, including John, by stop watch. This* was finally disposed of and the hearing concluded,, the committee reserving its decision, which will be, given after further consideration.