FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 228, 23 June 1944, Page 4

FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY

Need For Retaining Skilled Operatives

The prospective shortage of all lines of footwear for the year commenced May 1 was 17,000 pairs, said Mr. D. R. Rankin, representing the district manpower officer, during the hearing by the Wellington Industrial Manpower Committee yesterday of an appeal by L. A. Jamieson, footwear worker, against the decision of the manpower) officer refusing him permission to terminate his employment with T. J. Davenports, Ltd. Appellant had been released from the armed forces on his own application, supported by the firm and also by the district manpower officer, to return to the trade because of the shortage of skilled operatives, said Mr. Rankin. The firm was doing work which 'was relieving fl bottleneck in footwear manufacture, and all available skilled men were needed. It was the wish of the footwear trades utilization committee with the support of the Ministry of Supply that every operator be retained. If was estimated that in Wellington at least 50 grade 1 men were held in the industry on appeal from the armed forces. The Dominion requirement compared with output was down at present by 990 pairs of civilian men’s boots weekly, 700 pairs of military boots and 600 pairs of civilian men’s shoes, and other levels were only just being maintained. Only twofifths of the quota on . infants’ shoes could be manufactured in New Zealand. The remainder would have to be imports. Before the war the Dominion’s footwear production was 3,000,000 pairs annually. Today it was 6,000,000 pairs, showing the need for the retention of all skilled hands. Appellant said his net earnings of £5/2/9 a week were insufficient to meet his commitments. He could earn more including overtime on the. tramways where he had worked previously and where a job was available. Evidence was given by a member of the firm that appellant, could .get five or six hours overtime weekly in another section of the firm, but he had declined this. Appellant, was a good worker. The work on military footwear had eased off in the past few months, but there had been a hold-up on another phase of the work. Appellant said his reason for the refusal was that stationary work on a concrete floor played up with his feet. Decision was reserved.