INDUSTRIAL MAN-POWER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25083, 26 November 1942, Page 6

INDUSTRIAL MAN-POWER

HEARING OF APPEALS The Industrial Man-power Committee held a sitting yesterday, when appeals against the direction or decision of the district man-power officer (Mr E. A. Selman) were dealt with. The chairman, Mr M. W. Grantham, presided, and associated with him were Messrs S. D. Macpherson and H. H. Gillard. Decision Reserved

Lawrence Maloney appealed against the action of the man-power officer in refusing him permission to terminate his employment as a carpenter with the Fletcher Construction Company.—Mr Selman said that the appellant was engaged on the construction of the linseed oil factory in Dunedin, which was regarded as vitally important. To permit even one man to leave the industry would accentuate the difficulties that were already being experienced.—The appellant said that he had been farming for 17 years, but had sub-let his farm and resumed his former occupation as a carpenter. The dairy inspector required that certain work should be carried out on the farm before a licence could be granted for the sale of milk, and before the lease was arranged the appellant had promised to do this work. This was the reason for the appeal. Decision was reserved. Appeals Disallowed Mavis Mclvor, employed as a coat machinist by G. Burnett, appealed against the decision of the man-power officer directing her to take employment with T. H. Elmes and Co., in a similar capacity. The appeal was made for health reasons, the appellant stating that she was willing to accept employment in any other essential industry which she felt would be within her powers.—Mr Selman said that there was a shortage of experienced machinists for the type of work to which the appellant had been directed.—The appeal was disallowed, with a provision that the appellant should be employed only on suitable work. The committee gave its reserved decision in an appeal by F. J. Perriman against the action of the man-power officer in granting permission to Radiation, Ltd., to transfer the appellant to work at a lower rate of pay in another part of the foundry.—The appeal was disallowed, but the committee recommended that, in view of the appellant’s service with Radiation, Ltd., before the war, consideration should be given to his reinstatement in his former employment as soon as the opportunity offered.