RESIGNATIONS TENDERED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21860, 13 August 1936, Page 6

RESIGNATIONS TENDERED

Women’s Employment Committee

DISSENSION RESULTS IN DEADLOCK Dissension in the executive of the Women’s Employment Committee has led to the resignation of four members, including that of the chairwoman, Mi&s E. M. Higgins. Matters reached a crisis two weeks ago when the annual report of the executive was presented by Miss Higgins, and, as a result of the attitude taken up by a section of the executive, Miss Higgins and three other members have tendered their resignations. The position was placed before the Minister for Labour, the Hon. H, T. Armstrong, this week. The Minister, it ts learned, has refused to accept the resignations of the four women concerned, Miss Higgins, Mrs W. F. Kent-Johnson, Miss F. L. Cooper, and Miss C. E. Robinson, and matters have now reached a deadlock. In the meantime, under Mrs J. Souter, the new chairwoman of the executive, the committee. originally of 17 members with 32 girls and women in its charge, is carrying on its administration, pending further communication with the Minister.

Problems of Training Centre It is understood that the members who have resigned have for long been dissatisfied with the whole position of women's employment In Christchurch, particularly regarding the Majestic Centre administration. Reference to this aspect of the question was made by Miss Higgins in her annual report last month, when she mentioned the problem created by women, especially younger women, who were content to remain at the committee’s training centre indefinitely, and consequently were hard to place in employment. There was also, Miss Higgins had stated, a great need for a training centre for younger women and girls of limited ability. For these cases working at the centre was neither suitable nor desirable. Besolat'on of No Confidence Following the publication of the report of the annual meefng, four members of the executive, Mrs R. S. Trevella, Mrs J. Grant, Miss Ada Robinson, and Mrs J. Souter. in a letter to the editor of “The Press.” publicly dissociated themselves from the remarks made by Miss Higgins, The girls employed at the centre also held a meeting recently, at which they carried a resolution of no confidence in Miss Higg'ns. The resolution was merely “received” at the next meeting of the executive, and it is believed that there is some dissatisfaction on this score. Commenting at the time on the situation that had arisen, Miss Higgins sa ! d she was in no way perturbed by the action of the four members of the executive. They were, she stated, all new members of the committee, who had been appointed bv the present Minister for Labour, Mr Armstrong. They had not taken part in the Png and ardous activities of the original committee during the years when the depression was most acute, and their crit’cism could not possibly arise from a long experience of the working of the committee. “An Imagined Slight” “I understand that my remarks rather hurt the suscept’bilitles of one nr two unemployed women,” said Miss Higgins. “I am sorry they shou’d have done so, but I think the women concerned must have read considerably more Into the report than was ever intended. It was in no way a personal reflection, but a general observation made after years of dose study of the problems with wh<eh v/e are The action of a little clique in dissociating themselves from my report is merely an exaggeration of an imagined slight. Had this hostile atftude been taken uo by o’der members of the executive I shouM have been worried, but In the cPcum'-Pnces it does not disturb me in the leash It is rather significant that all the members of the executive were present at the meeting when the report was read and adopted, and not one of them had any criticism to offer at the time.”

It is understood that some of the members who have resigned from the executive are still members of the girls’ vocational sub-committee. There is also a conflict of opinion regarding this committee. It is held by the one section that the work of this committee should be entirely separated from that of the Majestic training centre, while the other section considers that there should be no division of the work.

When the matter was referred to the Minister last evening he said he did not think there was any serious trouble in the committee. “I have nothing but admiration for the work that has been done by the committee in the past,” said Mr Armstrong “I believe a very large section of the committee is in favour of the separation of the vocational guidance work from the activities at the training centre, but until I return to Wellington and discuss the question with officers of my department. I am not in a position to give a decision. However, the idea appeals to me very much. While it is almost impossible for a large committee to agree on the control of even one department of the work, let alone two. it may be quite possible for the committee to divide itself into two sections, each of which may control a particular branch of the work.”