MAN-POWER REGULATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25856, 29 May 1945, Page 2

MAN-POWER REGULATIONS

BREACHES 1 BY COMPANY

EMPLOYERS' OBLIGATIONS

“ The department takes a serious view of these matters because the shortage of labour makes it necessary that a check should be kept on the movements of all workers,” said Mr D. A. Bell, who appeared for the National Service Department in a case against T. E. Sagar and Co., Ltd., which was heard in the City Police Court yesterday before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M. The defendant company was charged with breaches of the Man-power Regulations in that it engaged Irene Anderson without giving notice of such intention to the district man-power officer, and also in failing to give notice of the termination of the employment of lona McLaren. Mr I B. Stevenson appeared for the defendant company, which pleaded guilty to each charge. Department’s Views Mr Bell said that Miss Anderson was only 16 years of age, and it might be contended that as she was not required to register the defendant company did not have to comply with the order requiring notification of the engagement. The regulation, however, stipulated that such notification must be given, and the department frequently had applications from employers who wished to engage persons who did not have to register. In this case. Miss Anderson had left an essential industry without the consent of the manpower officer. The magistrate: Was there anything to prevent her from leaving her essential work? Mr Bell: She should have obtained permission to leave. The magistrate: Even if she were under 16? Mr Bell: Yes. Dealing with the other charge, Mr Bell said that the defendant company was required to notify the man-power officer of the termination of Mrs McLaren’s employment within 24 hours, but notice was not given until a week later. It was doubtful, Mr Bell added, if it would have been given then had the department not been investigating the other charge. In cases where persons were employed in a non-essential industry, such as the defendant company was engaged in, it was sufficient if notice of termination were given to the department. Mr Stevenson said that the charge m regard to the employment of Miss Anderson had arisen from a misconception generally held by the public that the regulations did not apply where an employee was not liable to direction. If a person were under or over the age for direction, it seemed unnecessary that an employer should have to seek consent to engage an employee or to terminate her employment. The regulations had been complied with, counsel added, before the informations were lodged, but after the defendant company had been apprised of its obligations by an inspector. The magistrate said that had the breaches been deliberate he would have iihposed substantial penalties, but he could not find that such was the case. , Fines of £l, with costs (10s), were imposed on each charge. Further Adjournment

When the previously adjourned charge against Violet Edna Whitty, alleging a breach of the Man-power Regulations in failing to comply with a direction to employment at the Nurses’ Home, was called, Mr W. McAlevey, who appeared for the defendant, said that an appeal had been heard by the Industrial Man-power Committee. The appeal was allowed, and the man-power officer’s direction was cancelled. Mr D. A. Bell, who appeared on behalf of the National Service Department, said that he had been instructed to ask for a conviction. The defendant had defied the man-power officer’s direction, and the imposition of a penalty would act as a deterrent to others similarly inclined. The magistrate adjourned the case for a further fortnight to enable Mr Bell to ascertain whether the department desired to press for a conviction. His Worship intimated that there would be no penalty and that his present opinion was that the case should be withdrawn.