Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

EMPLOYEE DISMISSED

VICTIMISATION ALLEGED CASE BEFORE APPEAL COMMITTEE Before the Industrial Man-power Appeal Committee yesterday, Guy Winter, a former employee of Stevenson and Cook Ltd., of Port Chalmers, appealed against the decision of the acting man-power officer,' Mr J. H. Flowers, permitting the firm to terminate his services. The appellant, who was represented by Mr O. G. Stevens, based his case on alleged victimisation. The defence of the company was a complete denial of the allegation of victimisation, and it was pointed out that the simple reason for Winter's dismissal in common with other employees was that work had come to an end. The work, it was stated, was under Government direction, and the wages were paid by the Government and the firm was paid hack. The committee—Messrs H. W. Grantham (chairman), A. Mcßae, and H. H. Gillard —reserved its decision. “ Since last November Stevenson and Cook, Ltd., has curtailed the minesweeper construction programme, and has reduced its staff to 58, including Winter Mr Flowers said. " Certain parts of yards have been closed down entirely. I could see no particular reason why the appellant’s services should not be teiminated along with several others. Obligations of Employers Mr Stevens said the appeal was of considerable importance, as it was going to have repercussions throughout industry in New Zealand This employee bad been with the firm for two years, and there was no suggestion that he was not an excellent worker, nor that he was guilty of misconduct. Persons directed into industry were bound to remain in that employment, but unless a stage was to be reached when caprice was the reason for a dismissal an employer must have sufficient and good grounds to dismiss one employee before another. Th® man power regulations should not be utilised, saffi Mr Stevens, as a lever for the dis missal of an employee when conditions became slack. An unfortunate etement about this particular case was that Wintei was a shop Reward towards the end of his' employment, and until the question of travelling time arose there was good feeling between the manager (Mr J. T. Knewftubb) and himself. When the minesweeper programme stopped Winter was able, by his representations, to cancel what might have been a stop-work meeting of the employees. It was after this that there was talk of his dismissal, whic duly took place. Winter’s union believed that he had been victimised and had directed him to appeal to the Man-power Committee against his dismissal. ’Dus wa a matter said Mr Stevens, that must be determined 8 The appellant could obtain work elsewhere, but it was time a stand was taken, not only in this particular Industry, but because a decision would af An OUtli P n 0 e Sit df on tr o oub ole 0 le e over the commencement of the Christmas holidays and provision for payment bef °F® t th ® ?? safd was given bv the appellant, who fam there had been two stop-work meetings throughout the yards. The weitton of his dismissal was regarded by mmseu and his union as involving a Before his dismissal he was a metai worker Shortly after this occurred he was rk advisfd ttJt he would be reinstated and was told to report to the docks. Tins he M^ a Mark U Hanan° (representing the comWf w| Cabinet and that the manager, Mr Knewstubb, was only carrying out the Government’s instructions? —No. Mr Hanan said that because Government orders had been cancelled Arm had had to retrench. The employment auestion was one of Government policy. The Government dictated the conditions of wages and employment. The company got the 111-will and publicity from these cases, but It was not to blame, because It was merely an instrument so far as the carrying out of work was concernea. Mr Hanan called Mr J- T. Knewstubb, Mr David Low, manager of the ship yards and Mr Thomas Anderson, an officer of the Marine Department, to give evidence on behalf of the firm. Mr Stevens and Mr Hanan then addressed the committee. Appeal for Doctor

“ The Medical School Is definitely understaffed, and has a large Influx of students, and It seems incredible that such a decision should be given without the Medical School having an opportunity to make a statement,’’ said the dean of the medical faculty of the Otago University, Dr C. E. Hercus, when giving evidence in an appeal by the Otago Hospital Board against the granting of permission to Dr David Uttley Strang to terminate his services at the Hospital. The decision was given, it was explained, to enable Dr Strang to accept a position In the Nelson Hospital. „ „ „ Mr Flowers said that Dr Strang’s application to terminate his employment had been referred to the Minister of Health (Mr A. H. Nordmeyer), the Health Department and the National Medical Council, and a recommendation had been made for his release.

Dr Hercus said that about a year ago the Ministers of Education and Health had said there would be no Interference with the staff of the school, and promised every assistance. It seemed incredible, in view of those promises, that anyone could think that the Nelson Hospital had a greater need than the Medical School. The staffing problem was a crushing one, he said, and if this officer was taken the teaching must be affected. In war-time the individual did not count—it was a matter of what was best for the country. The loss of Dr Strang would be a tremendous blow to the Medical School.

Dr F. H. Smirk, professor of medicine at the Hospital, stated that the position was a difficult one. There had been many changes in the staff and it was difficult to organise the work. The staff was already insufficient and it would be a serious matter to take Dr Strang, who was also a teacher. It was imperative to maintain the standard of work for the large number of medical students. Mr Grantham (chairman): Do you think a doctor could be found more easily for the Nelson Hospital?—l should think so. We require a person who is qualified to teach as well as carry out administrative work.

Dr Smirk said he thought it would perhaps be in Dr Strang’s interests to go; but in the interests of the profession he felt it would be better for him to remain in his present position. Dr Strang said that his position was unusual in that the University and the Hospital Board combined to pay his salary. If he went to Nelson he agreed that the Hospital would be short-staffed, but he felt that he would like to have a wider field of work. Decision was reserved. Other Appeals Alexander H. Walkinshaw (Mr O. G. Stevens) appealed against a direction that Miss Florence Walkinshaw, at present employed by Moncrieff and Stewart, Ltd., should accept employment with Mackintosh Caley Phoenix, Ltd., as a biscuit packer.—Decision was reserved. Herbert James Paterson (Mr C. H. S. Stevens) appealed against refusal of permission to terminate his employment with the Dominion Lime Company, Ltd.—The appeal was allowed, the appellant to report to the man-power officer forthwith for direction into alternative essential industry. Rodney A. Farry appealed, on the grounds of ill-health, against a direction to employment with the Crown Rolling Mills as a labourer.—Decision was reserved, the appellant to be medically examined for the committee. Charles Robert Tomkinson, skilled labourer, appealed against refusal of permission to terminate his employment with Kempthorne, Prosser, Ltd.—Decision was reserved, the appellant to be medically examined for the committee, Mrs H. Carr appealed against a direction that Miss Joan Amy Car r at present employed by Mr H. Carr, should accept employment at the Seacliif Menial Hospital as a probationer nurse.—The appeal was allowed.

Oscar Newman (Mr B. H. B. Pinfold), confectioner, appealed against the direction that Miss Mavis A. Pratt, at present employed by the appellant as a shop assistant, should accept employment with the Otago' Hospital Board as a wardsmaid.— The case was adjourned for one month. Sargood, Son, and Ewen, Ltd., appealed against the granting of permission to Miss Thelma E. Peterson (Mr G. T. Baylee) to terminate her employment with the appellant firm.—Decision was reserved.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ODT19440301.2.93

Bibliographic details

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25473, 1 March 1944, Page 6

Word Count
1,366

EMPLOYEE DISMISSED Otago Daily Times, Issue 25473, 1 March 1944, Page 6

EMPLOYEE DISMISSED Otago Daily Times, Issue 25473, 1 March 1944, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert