ANTICIPATORY DISMISSALS

Evening Star, Issue 22347, 25 May 1936, Page 8

ANTICIPATORY DISMISSALS

LABOUR MINISTER'S THREAT DRASTIC RETROSPECTIVE MEASURES [From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, May 25. An intimation that the Government may take drastic steps to deal with employers who are dismissing workers in anticipation of the coming into force of the new industrial legislation was given to-day by the Minister of Labour.

Air Armstrong said there were some unscrupulous employers who were attempting to take advantage of their employees, and the Government would not hesitate to pass retrospective legislation if that sort of thing became worse.

“ The Government,” said the Minister, “ has been absolutely reasonable in regard to the date _on which the legislation is to come into force. It could have adhered to the original date, June 1, but it decided to change it to July I to give the employers breathing space, and in the case of the shorter working week it has postponed its operation until September 1 to suit the convenience of employers.” The Minister said that already he had received a number of complaints from workers whose services were being dispensed with by their employers. There was an idea in the minds of some employers that if they dispensed with the services of young persons employed under the Factories Act they could reengage them after the Bill became law at 15s a week. He wanted to make it clear that they could not do anything of the kind. The case of one young man who had matriculated at the age _of 16 years was mentioned by the Minister. Owing to the slump, he said, this young fellow found it difficult to secure a job, but eventually he obtained one at 10s a week. He was now receiving £1 a week. Although he was one of the most highly educated young fellows in the Dominion his employer had demanded his resignation, and had asked that it be dated before the end of June, because the Shops and Offices Bill would become law on July 1, and the employer was under the impression that the young man would then have to be paid a wage of £4 a week. “As a matter of fact;”- said the Minister, “the employer is wrong, because the Bill only fixes the minimum rates of starting at 15s a vveeik, rising to £2 after three years’ service. An employer who is too miserable to pay a brilliant young man like_ that £2 a week should not have a license to be in business at all.

“ That type of employer is an exception to the rule. I think the general run of business men and factory proprietors are more inclined to be helpful than otherwise. The object of the unscrupulous employer is to do these things before the Bills become law, because they realise that jf they wait until after July 1 they will have to give good and sufficient reasons for dispensing with the services of employees; but if they are not mighty careful fhey will find that the Government will take drastic measures for dealing with them and will pass retrospective legislation.”