MAN NOT REINSTATED

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20639, 20 August 1941, Page 2

MAN NOT REINSTATED

EMPLOYER CHARGED S.M. DISMISSES CASE “If an employer can prove that reinstatement after military service of a former employee is made impossible by certain alterations in business circumstances, that is a good defence against a charge of this nature, but if another man has been taken on to replace the first employee and still no reinstatement is made, that firm must be guilty of a breach of the regulations,” said Mr. F. Wilson, inspector of factories, in the Stratford Court, when Charles William Ansford, a motor engineer, was charged with a breach of the occupational re-estab-lishment emergency regulations, 1940. The case was dismissed. Outlining the case, Mr. Wilson said that the garage attendant, Stanley C. Ramsay, left to go into camp at Trentham on February 4. He was discharged on June 30. He was replaced in his job by a man called Clements, who enlisted on April 22. On March 30, a boy was employed by Ansford and since Clements went to camp the boy had carried on. Mr. Wilson said he interviewed Ansford early in July and had been informed by Ansford that he could not afford to re-employ Ramsay, as business had fallen off severely. Appearing for Ansford, Mr. S. Macalister said that the regulations were framed for the protection not only of discharged soldiers but also of employers. He contended that Ramsay was not replaced by the boy. The magistrate, Mr. W. H. Woodward, S.M., said the case hinged on the practicability or otherwise of reinstating Ramsay, and it was with some doubt that he came to the conclusion that it was the decline of the motor business which prevented Ansford from reinstating Ramsay. He felt he must dismiss the case, although, on the face of it, it looked as though an offence had been committed.