UNREST AMONG WORKERS

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23545, 24 January 1942, Page 6

UNREST AMONG WORKERS

CLOTHING TRADE

UNION OBJECTIONS TO REGULATIONS Unrest among clothing trade workers in Canterbury over the introduction of the emergency industrial regulations has caused the half-yearly meeting of the Clothing Trade Union to be advanced to next Wednesday. This was stated last night by MrJphn Roberts, the secretary of the union, when he was asked why the date of the meeting had been advanced. A protest against the regulations is certain to be made, at least by the members employed on civilian clothing, said Mr Roberts, who explained that the meeting was being called earlier at the request of members. The gazetting of the regulations recently had caused concern among the girls employed in the clothing industry, Mr Roberts said. As interpreted by the girls, the regulations "anchored” them to their jobs, and they could not leave without the permission of the District Manpower Officer. Actually, only four firms in the industry came under the regulations as essential undertakings. “Objections have been made strongly by workers engaged on the production of civilian clothing against their being brought within the scope of the regulations, because they are employed by a firm which is engaged on war work. For instance, we have girls making bloomers, underwear, and frocks; yet because their employer is making military clothing, they are subjected to the regulations. The bulk of that staff is employed on making civilian clothing. Another factory which confines itself to the production of underwear is not covered by the regulations. “The right of the workers to sell their labour in the best market* is denied them under the regulations, and that has caused dissatisfaction. There is a shortage of labour in the industry, and the workers are now denied the opportunity of taking advantage of the law of supply and demand. Naturally they have no wish to obstruct the war effort: indeed, their record has been one of great pride to them, for the production of uniforms by the trade has reached astronomical figures and they have aiso met civilian needs. In addition to clothing the Army, Air Force, and Navy of the Dominion and the civilians, they are now engaged on the production of clothing for the Indian Army.” Unionists’ Attitude

The view of the unionists was that, taking into consideration the great service given by them, they should not be brought within the scope of the regulations, said Mr Roberts. They had met every demand made on them and they felt that they had justifiable cause for protest when garment workers were brought under the regulations without any consultation by the Gov- 1 ' ernment with them. “To us, the i emulations are reminiscent of the Statute of Labour of the Middle Ages, under which farm labour was tied to the job,” he said, ‘‘and the girls are expressing strong objections to them. In Canterbury, the union has a membership of 2500.” So far as he had been able to ascertain, no girls had left their employment since the regulations were gazetted, said the secretary, but he had been advised that two girls who had handed in their resignations were threatened by an official that if they left their employment they would be fined £SO or given three months’ imprisonment. Such cases of threats would be investigated by the union. The regulations were also indefinite as to whether an employee could leave to be married, but, perhaps, such a ground would be held to be reasonable.

The point was that the workers were restricted in their employment and resentment had been expressed by them against their singling out for admonition in big black letters in the circular posted in factories by the National Service Department. Four cases for which workers could be dismissed were quoted. They were:—Absence without reasonable excuse; persistent illness; failure to work without undue delays; failure to exercise proper skill and care.

“But no homilies to the employers have been issued,” said Mr Roberts. “The workers have not been advised as to grounds which are considered satisfactory for workers leaving employment. They might be dissatisfied with the conduct of the factory and the treatment they receive from their employers, yet the regulations compel them to remain.” While no cases of defiance of the regulations had been reported, several applications for permission to leave employment had been filed by members of his union, Mr Roberts said in reply to questions.