SHIRT PRODUCTION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25829, 27 April 1945, Page 6

SHIRT PRODUCTION

TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF WORKERS ALLEGED VICTIMISATION Alleged victimisation, undue hardship, and public interest were the grounds of two appeals by the London Mantle Manufacturing Company, which were heard oy the Industrial Manpower Appeal Committee at its sitting yesterday. The appeals were the outcome of the diversion of machinists to the H.B. Clothing Factory in order to increase the production of neglige shirts. Altogether 23 machinists, all employed by local clothing factories, were affected by the directions. The appeals were lodged for Miss M. L. Turner and Miss M. P. Fogarty, and Mr C. H. Stevens appeared for the appellant firm. After hearing evidence the committee disallowed both appeals. The district man-power officer (Mr S. C. Bingham) said that a number of machinists had been directed to the employ of Hallenstein Bros, as shirt makers, and were required for the work until June 30. when they would return to their previous employment. In view of the acute shortage of shirts, the National Garment Control Council had sent representatives to Dunedin. A joint meeting had been called to discuss the matter, and it was agreed that there should be increased production of shirts until the end of June. A sub-committee had been formed, and manufacturers were interviewed. The response had been satisfactory, and an increased production of 200 per cent, was promised. Transfer for Three Months This meant the diversion of 23 machinists from other factories because of the difficulty of obtaining such workers outside the industry, Mr Bingham continued. Seven manufacturers had been interviewed regarding the transfer of machinists for three months. Mr M. J. Manning, of the London Mantle Manufacturing Company, had agreed to co-operate and transfer four machinists. Although it was not the intention that key girls should be transferred, competent machinists were required, and two of those transferred from the London Mantle Company were inexperienced. Both were under 16 years of age. They had been tried, but it was found that they could not materially assist in raising production It was then that directions were issued to Misses Turner and Fogarty. _ Corroborative evidence was given by Mr H H Forward, of the Department of Industries and Commerce, and Mr R A. Hill, the workers’ representative on the sub-committee set up. The latter stated that 10 girls had been transferred from Ross and Glendming, Ltd., four from the Dominion Frock Company, and two each from some of the smaller firms. “The directing of these two girls will ruin the company. It had three first-class machinists and two of them have been taken,’’ said Mr Stevens. Miss Turner had had about three years’ experience and Miss Fogarty about 10 years’, he added. The arbitary and dictatorial methods used had been a direct abuse of the regulations. If the appeals failed the firm did not see how it could carry on. The girls had been told by the man-power officer to report to the H.B. Clothing Factory pending the appeal. Mr Stevens said he considered it wrong that workers should be dragooned into the positions to which they had been directed until their appeal cases had been heard. Such action was apt to create discontent. Statement by Manager The manager of the London Mantle Manufacturing Company (Mr Manning), in-a written statement, said he had no hesitation in saying that he had been unfairly treated by the manpower authorities. He had selected four girls to go to the H.B. factory, but later two officials called and said they wanted two more first-class machinists. He told them that he had met their requirements, but they said that the two younger girls were useless on machines. This, continued Mr Manning, was quite contrary to fact and in any event when the manpower officials first called they had said that they did not require firstclass girls as the work was of a routine nature. The officials stated that if he did not consent they would “man-power” the girls. He had replied: “It is in your power to close me up. What can I do? I simply cannot comply with your request. You will have to do your worst.” They said they would take the girls in any case. No investigation of his work or orders had been made, Mr Manning added. He had received no consideration.