TWO DISMISSALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26770, 13 May 1948, Page 6

TWO DISMISSALS

EX-SOLDIERS IN PUBLIC SERVICE VICTIMISATION CHARGED The two Public Service officers who have received notices of dismissal because of their refusal to accept transfers from Dunedin to Wellington are both returned servicemen. Both claim that they have been victimised. The subject was first mentioned in a special article from Wellington yesterday morning . Both men are single, one 24 years of age and the other 26. They were employed as clerks in the Social Security Department, and including the period of their war service, had been with the department for eight years. One man had three years’ war service with the R.N.Z.A.F., a year of which was spent in the Pacific. The other spent five years in the army, serving for two and a-half years in the Middle East.

Interviewed yesterday by the Daily Times, the men--said they commenced their employment at the head office of of the department in Wellington, and were transferred to Dunedin for family reasons. One man stated that he had obtained his transfer when his two brothers joined the forces. He was thus in a position to give borne assistance to his parents, who had a farm near Dunedin.

Subesquently, this man joined the air force, and when discharged from the service was taken back into the Social Security Department. He claimed that when he left Wellington originally, in 1942, he was told that he would not be required to go back to the head office. Last year, however. he stated, he was interviewed by one of the department's personnel officers from Wellington and was told that he would have to do service in the head office, but not for a year or two. When he was informed of his transfer to Wellington in July of last year, he continued, he made representations to the Director of Social Security, Wellington, stating the reasons why he did not wish to accept it, but not absolutely refusing. This man said that he had received three notices of his transfer to Wellington, and had written saying that he could not accept. He added that the department then “held a gun at his head,” informing him that he “ could accept the transfer or get out.” He told the department that he had no alternative but to leave the service if he could not remain in Dunedin, and finally he received advice that his services would be dispensed with under section 50 of the Public Service Regulations. He left the Social Security Department on April 30, and had since obtained other employment. He added that he was allowed to carry on in Dunedin, but that every three or six months he received a notification of his transfer until the matter came to a head in February of this year, when he was interviewed by personnel officers from Wellington, who told him he would have “to go to Wellington or get out.” He lodged appeals against his transfer from time to lime, and on April 19 received from the permanent head of the Social Security Department notice of termination of his services. Like his fellow officer, his employment with the Social Security Department ' ceased on April 30. and he, too. has since obtained another position. It is understood, however, that as a result of representations to the Returned Services’ Association, the position of both men is being investigated by the association's solicitor. Another returned serviceman in Oamaru is also said to be affected.