Women freezing workers put case

Press, 22 July 1980, Page 6

Women freezing workers put case

PA Invercargill The Equal Opportunities Tribunal yesterday began hearing allegations that three women were barred because of their sex from working as freezing. works butchers. The case is between the Human Rights Commission and the Ocean Beach Freezing Company, Ltd, over the company’s alleged contraventions of the Human Rights Commission Act. The commission has taken up the case of three women who were employed by the company as slaughterhouse assistants and who applied for jobs as butchers.

Counsel for the commission, Dr G. P. Barton, of Wellington, outlined , the case before the tribunal adjourned to inspect facilities at the freezing works. .

Dr Barton said the reasons given by the company’s soli-

citors for refusing to employ women butchers were:

—That it was not possible at that stage to employ a woman on the slaughterboard as a slaughterman because of the lack of separate facilities and “the fact that it is. not reasonably practicable to provide them.” —That the company considered it was, in the meantime, entitled to the benefit of temporary exemption con? ferred by section 17 of the act.

One of the women. Mrs Beryl Ann Ross, of Invercargill, after failing to get a job as a slaughterman, instructed her lawyer to act .for her on the issue. - . The case was taken to the Human Rights Commission, which on September 18, 1979, said that settlement. should be sought on the basis of loss of earnings for the previous season and for some loss

allegedly incurred for the 1980 season.

The company was asked that it “not discriminate in this manner again.” The sums suggested for settlement for the three women totalled $26,400. In evidence, Mrs Ross said she had worked for seven seasons at the works, including employment as a slaughterhouse assistant. Before the 1978-79 season she had made several applications to become a butcher. “For the 1978-79 season I put my name down again for the learners’ chain but when the list appeared soon after the start of the season, my name was not on it,” she said. “No explanation was given by the company although I was aware that at the time that my seniority was then 133 weeks whereas some of the men who were selected for the chain had!

only 70 weeks experience.”

Mrs Ross said she would be able to do “most if not all” the work which was required of a butcher. “l am strong physically and during my off-season I work at the Barrow Box Company in TapanuE It involves handling wood. “But in any event a number of functions Required of a butcher do not require outright physical strength,” she said. Mrs Ross did not understand the company’s argument about facilities. “A number of women are already employed as slaughterhouse assistants. Off the slaughterboard there is one set of four toilets for women and another set for men. The toilet facilities immediately adjoining the slaughterboard are exactly? the same for the men as for the women. “On the floor below, there!

is a locker room with about 40 lockers and ample sanitary and ablution facilities,” she said. ... As far as Mrs Ross was concerned, these facilities were available for use by any women who could be employed as butchers. After complaining to the commission, "most of the embarrassment which I experienced came at the time' when I first made a formal complaint through my solicitor about the failure to place me on the learners’ chain list. “There were many rude comments from men. On one or two occasions there were disgusting comments about the kind of purposes for which women were useful,” she said. ■ The hearing, before Mr J. H.* Wallace, Q.C. (chairman), Mrs E. Orr, and Mr A. A. K. Grant, will continue today.