APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23699, 25 July 1942, Page 4

APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL

MAN DIRECTED TO ESSENTIAL WORK DECISION OF MANPOWER OFFICER QUESTIONED (P.A.) WELLINGTON, July 24. An appeal against a decision of the Wellington Manpower Officer to permit a worker in an essential industry to be dismissed was heard by the Manpower Industrial Committee to-day. The appellant, T. L. Joines, an engineer employed previously by the Colonial Motor Company, claimed that he had been victimised, whereas the employers made several charges, including one that he had been making subversive statements and had caused disruption in the works. Joines had previously appealed successfully against an order of the manpower officer transferring him from the Colonial Motor Company. He contended that when he returned to work as a result of the direction of the Manpower Industrial Committee he had been victimised. For the appellant, Mr A. Black, secretary of the Engineers’ Union, said that the appellant had returned to work as directed, and had carried out the instructions of the committee not to engage in any political propaganda during working hours. He claimed that the management had approached him with a suggestion that he should agree to the transfer of Joines contrary to the direction of the committee. “An attempt was made to defy the Manpower Industrial Committee, and its whole purpose is at stake.” He said that the appellant had been trained by the Government at a cost of £IOO, but after his appeal against his transfer had been granted his skill had not been utilised and he had been employed as a labourer. Mr Black added that the manager had addressed a stopwork meeting, during which he had told employees details of Joines s domestic and private affairs and had threatened to close the works if Joines returned. “That would be a threat to the war effort,” stated the chairman of the committee (Mr J, Road). Question of Conduct Mr Black said further that at that meeting a resolution had been carried that "in the interests of harmony these two should be separated.” The emergency regulations stipulated that a worker could be dismissed only for serious misconduct, but there-was no evidence to that effect. The only objection was that the worker had taken a few minutes every morning for “smoko,” which, he claimed, the award permitted, and that he had written an article for “In Print.” The manager, Manning, had addressed a stop-work meeting for about 30 minutes, during which he had said that he would pay Joines a months wages to get rid of him, said Desire Marcus, a fitter and turner, who gave evidence on oath. When Mr L. R. James, secretary of the Wellington Manufacturers’ Association, representing the company, asked the witness about the subversive statements which he alleged appellant had made, the chairman ruled the question out of order. “That is'a matter for the police and not for this bpard. I have an assurance on that point,” he said. Further evidence on the stop-work meeting was given by another employee, James Arthur Anderson, who said that Manning had stated that either the manager or Joines would have to go. Asked by the chairman, after crossexamination. whether he was trying to discredit the witness, Mr James said he was trying to prove that the two witnesses had a grudge against the firm because they had been unable to gain transfers or permission to leave to enter the Army. "We have never had workers who have not carried out the directions of the committee They have accepted the position very well, and less than 1 per cent, of those directed under essential industry regulations have appealed,” said the chairman. Relations of the Men It was obvious that the two men, the appellant and the manager, could not work together, Mr James submitted. If they were left together there Would be a recurrence of the trouble. The work complained of as labouring had been directed by the Dominion Fire Controller as urgent, ahd Other mechanics had beeh directed to that Work. The manager. J. Manning, said under cross-examination that Joittes had not beeh permitted to Work overtime, and that he had been directed to take a longer lunch interval than others. To Mr B. L. Hammond, employers’ representative on the board, he replied that at the stop-work meeting he had said that the appellant was not Interested in the work but was there to undermine the war effort. Robert Hutchinson, blacksmith, said in evidence that in a letter to the man* power officer he had referred to the “deplorable state of discord” in the workshop, and had suggested that Joines should be found employment elsewhere “before physical violence intervened.” “There is a good deal to be Said for the contention that there has been victimisation,” said the chairman, in reserving decision. There Would be no one-way regulations, aud both sides would have to abide by the decision of the committee.