MANPOWER COMMITTEE

Grey River Argus, 7 June 1943, Page 3

MANPOWER COMMITTEE

GREYMOUTH SITTING. The Christchurch Manpower Appeal Committee, comprising Messrs. T. N. Nuttall (deputy chairman), x-. J. Kelly, and H. Lee held a sitting in Greymouth on Saturday to near eight appeal cases. The Manpower Officer (Mr. G. G. M. Mitchell) was also present. ~ , Horace Edward Robinson, a 1 üblic Works Department roadman, appealed against his direction to the Highbank Irrigation work .at Metnven. In evidence he said that he was single, had bad eyesight and a very shy nature. He could not work near machinery and was Grade 3 for the Army. Mr. E. J. Evans, the P.W.D. District Engineer, gave evidence stating Robinson had started with the Public Works Department in 1937. In 19ii he volunteered for a civil construction unit, but did not go overseas. On his return to the Department he was given his former employment. Witness had wired to Methven suggesting Robinson’s release but they replied that they had not nearly enough workers and could not allow ' Robinson’s release. Witness then stated the West Coast Public Works personnel had fallen from 1,350 in 1940 to 450, and in consequence they were understaffed. —The . appeal was allowed.

An appeal by Donald Godfrey Becker was adjourned on the application of the District Manpower Officer (Mr. Mitchell).

Matthew James Devlin, fireman (Mr. J. W. Hannan) anpeaied for release from the Railways Department. In evidence he said that he had been overseas in Fiji and returned Grade 3in June 1942. While overseas, his left knee gave trouble and was the cause of his regrading. His knee greatly troubled him when he resumed firing. He had been fireman since 1937. He had now applied for a draughting position in the Survey branch of the Mines Department and was almost certain of obtaining the job. Mr. Mitchell: Is the position permanent ?

Devlin: Yes, the Superintendent of the State Mines assured me.

Mr. Bishop (Assistant Railway Locomotive Engineer) stated that the manpower position regarding firemen was bad. Devlin averaging 51 hours a week for the last four weeks. He stated that the Railway Department, had Devlin released from the Army for work on the railways. Devlin said that he had been released from the Army as medically unfit. Mr. Mitchell said that there may have been the arrangement that Mr. Bishop had referred to, but on March 25, quite irrespective of any arrangement, Devlin was medically boarded graded 3, given 28 days leave, and discharged. He was then directed by the Manpower! Officer back to the Railways Department.

In giving the Committee’s decision, the chairman said that in view of the future opening and appellant’s disability the appeal would be allowed.

■ Robert Lamont Brown, a fireman in the Railway Department, appealed for release from the Department in order to join the Merchant Navy. In evidence he said that on the Army medical examination he was Grade 3, but passed Grade 1 in a Naval examination. He had previously appealed to join the Navy . ; Mr. Bishop said that the manpower oosition was bad and that Brown had been doing main line work lately. He was working an average of 5(J:i hours weekly. The chairman said that the question arose as to whether the Committee had jurisdiction over a case of this kind. —Decision would therefore, be reserved. The appeal was later dismissed.

An appeal by John Mclnne Vincent Morel, (Mr. W. D. Taylor) for release from the Te Kinga Sawmilling Co. was adjourned till the next sitting.

Stanley Scott appealed for release from the Bruce Bay Timbers Ltd. Mr. Mitchell said that as Scott had been replaced at the Bruce Bay job no objection would be raised.

N. j. B. Culling appealed against a. direction order to the employment of George Manning, master builder. George Manning, (Mr. F. A. Kitchingham) alscF appealed against Culling’s direction to him. Manning’s case was heard first.

Manning, in evidence, said that he had accepted a tender -for the erection of six houses at Inanga'hua Junction to be completed in October. lan Edgar Manning had been employed by him for nine years, tor lour years being his foreman. As the foreman of the Inangahua job would have to live there, Manning was the only suitable man. Manning’s appeal would be coming up for review on August 15 and if Culling started work with mm it would be to replace Manning. He had been making enquiries as a result of which he found Culling unsuitable for the job. Mr. Mitchell: You have-six houses to complete. How far are you on with the work? Witness: I have not started yet. There is no timber available. Mr. Mitchell: When d 0 you propose to start? Witness: The sawmillers guarantee to have the timber in two weeks. Mr. Mitchell then said that the Timber Utilisation Committee had practically made the work at Inangahua in order to keep carpenters m work. Under cross-examination, Witness said that he was not supporting r. E. Manning’s appeal on August lb. Mr. Kelly: Could not a leading carpenter take charge of the work? Witness: No, they’re not agreeable. Mr. Kitchingham: If Manning were ordered into camp, would you bo willing to take Culling? Witness: No. The decision was reserved and later the appeal was dismissed. Culling in evidence, said that ne had been in the Army one and a-half years and had been overseas. On his return he had been given compassionate leave because of his wife’s illness. He was a truck-repairer at a State Mine. It was a full-time iob but not a full carpentering job. He was still Grade 1 and may have to go back to ca'mp. House building did not appeal to him. He had four children, and if he were carpentering he would have to move about the district. His present work was permanent. while if working for Manning there would be no work in the rain. He had been working one and a-half weeks in the mine. . t u To Mr. Mitchell, he said that he had learnt the trade of carpentering Mr. Mitchell: Your work is not of a high class. Witness: No. Mr. Mitchell: Would you work wit-h Manning on his pre-fabrication contract at Greymouth? Witness: No. I would rather go down the mine. .Mr. Mitchell said that Mr. Smith, the Mine Manager said that Culling was too skilled to be repairing “tubs,” and if he were to be directed to more skilled essential work, he (Mr. Smith) would release him. The Committee reserved its decision but later dismissed the appeal.