APPEAL ALLOWED

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 35, 5 November 1942, Page 6

APPEAL ALLOWED

Degree Of Essentiality In Question WATERSIDE WORK OR CARPENTRY

The degree of essentiality of waterside work ns compared w’itlf the occupation of carpenter was an issue which faced the Wellington Manpower Industrial Committee yesterday, when an appeal was made by J. IL Waterhouse against a decision of the district manpower officer directing him to report to and accept employment with W. M. Angus and Co.', Ltd., in the capacity of a carpenter. Appellant had been' trained as a carpenter, but for the past seven years had been working as a watersider.

Mr. D. Napier, who appeared for the Waterside Workers’ Union, said that apiiellant was an A class man who worked all hours and did all classes of work, including that in the freezing chambers. There was an acute shortage of men, and they were unable to obtain men fit and. capable for A class work. Up till now appeals on behalf of men in this category against military service had been upheld, and some were to be heard again this month. If the manpower officer succeeded in removing annellant, the position, so far as they were concerned, would become farcical, and would not stop only with his case. It would mean that 200 to 300 men, the heart of the organization, would be taken out. They definitely were of the opinion that- the work which appellant was at present performing was of national importance. It was just as hard to secure men of this type for the waterfront as it was for the manpower officer to obtain carpenters. ’ Appellant said he had worked 80 hours last week, and for the past month he bad averaged 60 hours weekly. His earnings last year were £698/19/8. Mr. F. H. Waters, district manpower officer (to Mr. Napier) : It is known, iu it not, that there are tradesmen working on the waterfront—say, turners, fitters, boilermakers, carpenters and others) _ Mr. Napier: Yes, particularly freezing workers. , , . Appellant said that he had only been engaged in building work for one period of 12 months since 1929. He had done dunnage and ship repair work and then became a member of the Watcrsiders Union. His transfer would mean a big decrease in wages. He had just been graded I for the Army, and expected to go into camp soon. Mr. Waters: Are you one of the group called on to register under the building and allied trades section? Appellant: Yes, I took up.work on the wharves during the depression. The deputy-chairman, Mr. J. J. ocott: Then the fact is that you did not leave your trade, but it left you?—Yes. Mr. K. W. Angus said that the wages for the job to which appellant was directed were £lO/3/3 a week. It would last another eight or ten weeks, after whicli other work would be available. The a verage wages on the job last week were £ll/1/6. On top of this there were other concessions, such as holiday and sick pay. There was a definite shortage of building tradesmen in Wellington, and he could place 150 men in Al priority jobs on the morrow, though about 400 building tradesmen from all parts of New Zealand .md been brought to Wellington. . Mr. Napier: Which do you consider of the greater national importance, the facilitation of shipping or the job to which Waterhouse was directed.' Mr. Angus: They are bound together. We have combed New Zealand again and all we can get from the various centres are three more labourers. “This case resolves itself into a QUestion of essentiality,” said Mr. Watets, “and it is well known that there is a limited pool of labour in the carpentry trade. Is the manpower officer justified in directing skilled tradesmen under the circumstances? There is a principle involved, a« there are other skilled men ana tradesmen on the waterfront. The appeal was allowed, appellant to remain at waterside work.