MAKING OF FOOTWEAR

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 266, 10 November 1945, Page 4

MAKING OF FOOTWEAR

OPERATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL EFFICIENCY ACT DETRIMENTAL TO “SMALL” MEN (PA.) Auckland, Nov. 9. An allegation that the Industrial Efficiency Act, 1936, was being administered to the benefit of larger manufacturers, was matte in the case of Ronald Arthur Campbell (Mr. Grant) who was charaed before Mr. J. H. Luxford, S.M., with manufacturing footwear without a licence.

The prosecution was brought by the Department of Industries and Commerce. For that department Mr. Rosen said various persons had been manufacturing footwear without holding a licence prescribed by the Act. An officer of the department called at the defendant's shop in Pitt Street and purchased a pair of lady’s sandals, which he admitted he had manufactured. He said his application for a licence had been refused.

Mr. Grant said the department had permitted the defendant to carry on as a manufacturer for a number of years. In 1939 he had a staff of approximately nine, and his turnover was between £6OO and £7OO a month. After serving in the torces for two years, he applied several times for a licence, but was refused. Throughout the whole period since 1939 the department knew he was committing a breach of the law, as it would have been folly to shut him up owing to “tragic” shortage of footwear. Evidence was given by Claud Williams, former secretary 'of the Footwear Utilisation Manpower Committee, that cobblers could not participate in their trade and still remain law abiding citizens owing to the Industrial Efficiency Act, which was being administered solely in favour of larger manufacturers. He knew of a small trader in the city being refused labour because the department believed that any concern making under 2000 pairs a week was not an economical unit. There was a definite shortage of footwear in the country, and most of the shoddy articles were manufactured by the "big people.”

“I regard these allegations as very serious, and will grant an adjournment, if Mr. Rosen wishes, to communicate with his department for instructions.” said the magistrate. Called by Mr. Rosen, David Douglas Wilson, an officer of the department, said the suggestion that the department had been lax about bringing prosecutions was not correct. It had been known, for some time, that some traders were manufacturing without a licence, but had been unable to get sufficient evidence to lay a prosecution. In the present case the facts had taken 18 months to come to light. Referring to the shortage of footwear, witness said that, when New Zealand was committed to supply footwear to countries in the Eastern Group, the larger concerns were told what they were to make by the Factory Controller. His power still operated, and, in the meantime, the department had to see that the factories concerned were protected. The defendant was fined £5.