FARMERS' TRADING COMPANY

Auckland Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 168, 16 July 1918, Page 6

FARMERS' TRADING COMPANY

THE DISCHARGED MEN. EXPLANATION BY THE" COMPANY. fro the Editor.) —May I, as one of the returned soldiers dismissed from the Farmers' Union Trading Company, on the amalgamation with Laidlaw Leeds, state that absolutely no option was given mc in | this matter? I have in view a section under the Discharged Soldiers' Settlement Act, about which I spoke to Mr Boddie, asking for advice. Absolutely nothing concerning immediate settlement was mentioned, and until then, which may be months, I have to maintain a home i and a sick child. Was the bonus given mc (two weeks' salary) a fair compensation, after giving up 'a good position to go to the .Farmers' Union Trading Company? Being in an financial position, through the continued sickness of my child, this affair is no light matter to mc, and I have now had to appeal to the Patriotic Society in the endeavour to get assistance until I am in employ- ( ment. Is this fair treatment to mc, seeing that I have sacrificed everything to do my duty* am, etc.. M. NEWBERRY. Mr. Robert A. Laidlaw, in the absence of Mr. Boddie, on behalf of the firm concerned, has made the following statement about the above letter, and the whole question of the men whose services were dispensed with:—"lt was quite impossible for us to investigate the private circumstances of each of the 70 odd employees whose services had to be dispensed with, or Mr. Newberry would have received special treatment as others did who brought their cases before us. A letter has been sent to Mr. Newberry giving him a full explanation, and assuring him that if he will call, provision will be made for his wife and child to allow further time for him to secure employment. The major reason for all the dismissals was the very valid one that we simply had no work of any kind to offer the employees concerned. "As regards the other returned men, Mr. Stenberg reported that he had been appointed manager of a business in the South. Mr. Allen was not discharged, but handed in his notice, stating that he had another position to go to. Mr.' S is not a returned man, having been in camp only, and his previous employers, who are conducting a large business, have far more responsibility towards him than the Farmers' Union Trading Co. Mr. Ramson and Mr. Howlett are the only two returned men discharged who have not positions to go to. Now these two men were joint managers of our Fort Street dispatch department, and it has been reported that their services were not.retained because they were receiving too high salaries. This is less than half the truth, for the manager of our Hobson Street dispatch department receives a salary almost equivalent to both these men's wages put together. It was already most unsatisfactory having joint management of one department, but to suggest that when we closed the Fort Street warehouse we Should have transferred both these men to Hobson Street, and placed three men as managers in charge, of the same department, is toe ridiculous to require an answer. "To offer these men subordinate positions would not have been satisfactory to them, and moreover the actual dispatch work they were doing is being handled from Hobson Street warehouse by Mr. S. Woodcock, a returned soldier, and Mr. R. Watt, a married man with one child, who has been turned down as unfit. Mr. Watt has been a most satisfactory employee for over six years and thoroughly understands his work. We were in the awkward position of having four men to fill two positions, and we took the only course that any reasonable man with the full facts before him could have taken. So as to save Mr. Ramson and Mr. Howlett from loss of wages while they looked elsewhere, we handed each of them a bonus of £25. Both these men expressed their thanks to mc personally, and said they fully appreciated the exceedingly difficult position I was in. f, lt seems to .mc those who are responsible for the complaints appearing in the Press are doing cur returned men in general a grave injury. The six rcjj turned men represent less than 10 per cent of those dismissed, yet nothing is 3aid of the 90 per cent, thus giving the impression that when once an employer engages a returned man, he cannot discharge him, no matter how good the reason, without being criticised through the Press. This must result in making it harder than ever for our returned men to find positions and is most unfair to them, as 99 per cent are quite willing to accept employment on the same conditions as govern the rest of the staff. The dismissal of employees caused by the amalgamation of our two Trig businesses, the one originally employing 125 and the other 200 hands, has been the most painful situation I have ever had to face, hat any thoughtful person must know that the company could not uselessry pay away in wages £7800, being the amount paid annually to those dismissed, nor would the employees themselves have been satisfied to stay without definite work. As a matter of fact. after the Fort Street warehouse had been closed for business T had peveral applications from the staff to ha allowed to leave at once, as it/was so distressing to them filling in time with nothing to do. To discharge employees when they are unsuitable is haTd enough, as any sympathetic employer knows, but to discharge, a large number of them for no other Teacnn than that one has no positions in which to place them, is, an exrieripTirfi that T hope none of your readers will ever have to go through."