ALLEGATIONS BY. EMPLOYEE

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 25, 24 October 1942, Page 3

ALLEGATIONS BY. EMPLOYEE

Control Of Factory Allegations of mismanagement of the works at which he was employed, together with pin-pricking, "near victimization," and the use of bad language in the handling of employees, were made by an appellant before the Manpower Industrial Committee in Wellington when a decision of the district manpower officer refusing the worker permission. to leave his employment was under consideration. The worker, who stated that he had learnt his trade in the United States and knew the methods of mass production adopted there, said that certain of the plant was allowed to remain idle on a number of occasions, lie himself had been put on elementary work when a Government trainee, was set to do much more skilled work. He objected to an executive of the firm interfering in the management of the workshop, which should be left to the works manager, with whom he, appellant, had always been able to work amicably. He said that the fact that he had been placed on less skilled tasks was in his opinion “near victimization.” The deputy-chairman of the committee, Mr. J. J. Scott, pointed out to appellant fbat the Utilization Committee was the proper organization to which complaints of mismanagement should be made. It was not a matter for the Manpower Industrial Committee. Answering Mr. J. Arthurs, a member of the committee, appellant said he had not laid either the question of “near victimization” or that of mis-management before his own union, which, Mr, Arthurs pointed out, was the proper organization for him to complain to in the first place. Mr. B. L. Hammond, a member of the committee: You are taking exception to the language used by the manager of the firm. You have not exactly used angelic language in presenting your case to us? Appellant: I’m afraid I got a little carried away. On behalf of the firm concerned, the works manager said he had not come before the committee prepared to defend the factory methods. The employee had been working on an average 16 hours a week overtime, and his loss to the firm would therefore mean a decrease of 56 hours a week. The works were engaged

on important work for and closely connected with the war, and he quoted figures of orders ond hand and deliveries already made against those orders to show that they had, as the committee chairman termed it, more work than they could handle. . . In reference to the accusation of pinpricking, he quoted two instances of what might have been considered such by the men. The tea hour at the works, he said, was from 5.30 to 6.30 pmi. It had been the custom to allow a short break at S p.m. for the men to have a cup of tea. This concession had gradually grown from a few minutes break to as long as 20 minutes, and as a consequence the concession had been withdrawn. Another matter was the provision of special table racks, for jigs and tools used for the various jobs. In the interests of efficient, working, and works tidiness these had been instituted, the men were told to place the jigs and tools in these instead of leaving them lying about the benches. Dealing with the employee s complaint of “near victimization,” the works manag»r said that the man had been given a turning job to do and had not carried it out satisfactorily. He had therefore been given work he could do. He .was a hard worker, but not up Io the standard of some of the other workers. Appellant admitted that the particular job mentioned by the works manager had been done incorrectly. He had made a mistake and had not noticed that the adjustment 0f the lathe was wrong.