DISMISSAL NOT ALLOWED

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 77, 19 October 1942, Page 3

DISMISSAL NOT ALLOWED

MANPOWER OFFICER’S RULING UPHELD WOMEN’S EIGHT AT WORK Christchurch, Oct. 8. Ihe decision of the Manpoxver Oflicer in refusing to allow the Canterbury Frozen Meat Company, Ltd., to dismiss lour women employed at the company’s works at Belfast was upheld by the Industrial Manpower Committee yesterday. The company alleged that the women had been guilty ol serious misconduct at the works in that they had been involved in an attack on another woman employee, and it asked the committee to set aside the Manpower Officer’s ruling that it must continue to employ the women—Zeta M. Heron, M. Tavendale. Esther Smith, and Una Lon din. Ihe Manpower Officer had directed the company to reinstate the workers and arrange payment for not less than Ihe ordinary wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement, the appeal was dismissed, and the company was ordered to pay the women two weeks’ wages, on condition mat they apologised for their beMr K. G. Archer presided. Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for the company, and Mr H. G. Kilpatrick represented Uni )I C i :anlorbury Freezing Workers’ Events leading to the dismissal of the four employees were outlined by Mr Thomas. One of the girls at the works, he said, had been subjected to a certain amount of “picking” by four others who did not like her. Offensive i emarks had been passed and evidence could be shown that on 24th September one girl had said. “We are going to get her to-morrow.” On the following day during the lunch hour a fight started it? the bicycle shed and the ! ~ ir * attacked suffered a dislocated j shoulder. Two of the women stood at i t,le door xvhile the attack was being i made. EFFECT ON EFFICIENCY 'The company considers that such a disreputable fracas constituted serious misconduct,” added Mr Thomas. : l here was a time when the staff was hand-picked, but xvith the present exi pansion there are many employees who j wou,d not have been there under ordinary conditions, and if grave breaches |Of discipline were allowed it is hard to say where the matter would end. J hese breaches must cause a of efficiency. " The Power given to the Manpower Officer must not be used to shelter incidents like this—incidents which can have only one effect—to promote inefficiency. The company has a responsibility to see to the safety of its employees, and if ihis sort of thing goes on. there is a riot around the corner. The question for the committee to consider is whether fighting among women constitutes serious mis-

Mr Archer: Did it not occur to the company to put the matter in the hands of the police? We are not here to make a criminal inquiry. Mr Thomas: I understand that the police did make inquiriesN But if the committee is satisfied there was a fight then I submit it xvas serious misconduct. Mr Archer: It seems to have been a most undesirable incident,, but we must keep our minds on the interests of the war effort. Is it in those interests that these four girls be dismissed and pul. into another industry? Mr Thomas: If you hold that this misconduct does not affect efficiency then I can say no more. Giving the committee’s decision, Mr Archer said the matter had been investigated by the Manpoxver Officer, and the company had been directed to re-employ the girls. Pending the appeal, this direction should have been followed. The girls noxv offered to express their regret to the company for what had happened.