Failed To Return To Work When Ordered

Northern Advocate, 11 June 1942, Page 5

Failed To Return To Work When Ordered

(P.A.) WELLINGTON. This Day. The first prosecution in New Zealand under Regulation 8 of the National Service Emergency Regulations was heard before the magistrate (Mr Harley) at Petone yesterday. Defendant was Lindsay Gilmer Boyd and the charge was failing to return at the direction of the Minister for National Service to employment he was ordered to undertake.

The admitted facts were that defendant had undergone a course of training at a boot clicker under the emergency training scheme at a cost to the department of between £7O and £BO. Under the scheme he contracted to take up employment at the direction of the Minister.

In August, 1941. he took up employment at New Zealand Slippers Ltd. In December he indicated that he was not prepared to stand down for two weeks when the firm closed for the Christmas period. He was warned by the organiser of the emergency training scheme that not only he must remain in employment, but he was liable to be called on to refund the amount paid him during his training period. Ordered To Return He took employment as a truck driver and on January 12 was ordered by letter to return. On the same date he wrote to the Minister alleging that

artificial light was injuring his eyes. A reply was sent to him on February 2 stating that the department had investigated his complaint and advised him that he could not be released, and warned him to return within seven days.

Boyd denied receipt of this letter and also of a letter sent him by the secretary of the Drivers' Union. After hearing the evidence Mr Harley indicated that it was the court's duty to carry out as far as possible without injustice, the intention of the legislature. Here was a regulation providing for the training of men under an agreement which, however, went further and provided that the person might not leave his employment without the consent of the Minister. If that permission were not granted, there was power of appeal which had. under the recent amended regulations, been clarified.

No Appeal Made

Defendant went into this agreed employment. In December he gave notice and though promptly told to remain unless he got permission to exchange. he left. His letter to the Minister did not constitute an appeal but it might have been a request to leave. An appeal had never been lodged and no medical certificate had been produced.

It was clear that unless defendant wished to be involved in further legal proceedings, he must return to New Zealand Slippers Ltd. The magistrate suggested that defendant should be allowed to remain in his present employment until he had time formally lo appeal. It should be emphasised that an industrial worker was under as strict provisions as a soldier in uniform. He was .just as liable to punishment for a breach of orders as a soldier and could be put in prison for three months for refusal of duty, and defendant was equally liable. As there might have 'been some slight misconception, Boyd would be convicted and fined £2.