TEMPERAMENTALLY UNSUITED

Evening Star, Issue 25171, 10 May 1944, Page 2

TEMPERAMENTALLY UNSUITED

EMPLOYMENT AS MENTAL NURSES SUBMISSIONS IH MAN-POWER APPEAL GASES The necessity for considering the reaction on the health of a person not temperamentally equipped for essential employment at a mental hospital was discussed to-day by the Industrial Manpower Committee during the rehearing of two appeals against the direction of the district man-power officer that Miss Kathleen M. Fennessy and Miss Agnes L. Peterson accept employment at the Seacliff Mental Hospital as probationer nurses. " Though no normal physical disability can he stated, Miss Peterson is in a temperamental state that would mean that, were she directed to the hospital, there would be a serious effect on her health," said Mr J. B. Thomson, who represented the appellant. He added that if every person gave that reason after being directed to this type of employment, and the explanation were accepted by the committee, there would be no nurses to staff the hospitals. However, medical evideuce in this particular case definitely supported the claim that the appellant was psychologically unfitted for such duties. Miss Peterson was now employed in an essential capacity by Coull Somerville and Wilkie, and this firm wanted to retain her services. Dr A. S. Moody supported the appeal with medical evidence, and said that though he was extremely diffident in presentin git, because other medical evidence did not support the contention that the appellant was unsuited for work as a nurse, he felt that this particular case was genuine. Miss Peterson was quite unsuited, in his opinion, for work at the hospital, though from the physical viewpoint she could undertake any type of employment. The committee allowed the appeal. The reason for the appeal entered by Miss Fennessy, who was represented by Mr A. G. Neil!, was that she was also temperamentally unfitted for the work to which she had been directed, Dr I Moody saying that, though the appellant was physically fit, she was otherwise not suitable for employment at the hospital. It n-ould be a waste of time, lie said, to direct her to work as a nurse. He admitted, however, that she could be employed as a wardsmaid in a hqspital. Mr Neill said that Miss Fennessy had been employed by J. R. McKenzie Ltd. for 14 years, and was at present head of a department. The medical evidence, he submitted, showed that she was not temperamentally equipped to work at a mental institution. " It is not the desire of the National Service Department or the man-power officer to direct persons to jobs for which they are temperamentally unsuited and might have an injurious effect on their health," said the Chairman (Mr M. W. Grantham). "AH the department strives for is for a person to do some class of essential work, and if it is found that the type of employment is not in the interests of health t,he > man-power officer will make alternative work available."

The committee in this case reserved its decision. OTHER CASES.

An appeal by Leslie E. Towler and Mrs E. Towler against refusal of permission sought by the former to terminate his employment with the New Zealand Railways, Ranfurly, was disallowed. On the ground of undue hardship, Edward A. Richardson appealed against refusal of permission to terminate his employment at the Seacliff Mental Hospita.l as an attendant.— Decision was reserved. Arthur W. Foster appealed against a direction from his present employment at Stevenson and Cook Ltd., Port Chalmers, to the employ of W. H. Taylor Ltd.. as a carpenter.—The appeal was disallowed, the appellant to take up his new employment on Monday. Alexander D. Miller (Mr C. H. S. Stevens') appealed against refusal of permission to terminate his employment with the (Railways Department in order to take up employment- with the Timaru Harbour Board. The board was represented by Mr A. C. Stephens. Decision was reserved.