SURPLUS WORKERS

Press, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 23750, 23 September 1942, Page 4

SURPLUS WORKERS

♦ RULING ABOUT DISMISSAL

INDUSTRIAL MANPOWER COMMITTEE

“The committee does not feel that it can give a decision without prejudicing either the employer or the workers concerning whose employment similar application; for leave to terminate have been or are about to be made,” stated the reserved judgment of the Industrial Manpower Committee in the appeal against dismissal from the Kaiapoi woollen mills of Henry Hartley, heard at Kaiapoi on Monday. The committee comprised Messrs K. G. Archer (chairman), H. Lee, and P. J. Kelly. The statement continued that the case would therefore be referred back to the Manpower Officer for consideration in conjunction with such other applications as the company might make, for permission to dismiss surplus workers resulting from the rearrangement of working hours. “Every effort should be made to secure by negotiation between the employer, the union, the Labour Department, the Manpower Officer, and the workers concerned, an amicable settlement of all disputes arising or liable to arise from altered conditions of work, and it is suggested that the Manpower Officer should convene a conference with this end in view,” the statement continued. “In the event of disagreement. the Manpower Officer, in deciding ' 'hether the services of any particular worker should be retained or dispensed with, should be guided by the principle that a worker no longer required in one •■■articular department should be given employment in another section and so retained in employment within the undertaking as a whole, provided work can be found which the worker is reasonably able to perform. If no such work is available, the Manpower Officer, in giving leave to terminate employment, should also assist the worker affected to find other suitable ■work, so as to eliminate any period of ■unemployment.” The present case would therefore be adjourned sine die, to be brought on a further report by the Manpower Officer on his efforts was rej , In sucil cases that could not be •euied by negotiation, the Manpower would make his order in due urse and it was desired that any

appeal against such orders, together with this case, should be .brought before the committee again as soon as possible. T 1 was suggested that in the event of the Manpower Officer, in similar cases, granting leave to terminate employment, his order should be subject to the condition that if appeals were lodged within seven days the men concerned should be retained pending the determination of their appeals.