West Hartlepool laundry charged under the Factories Act
Transcript from Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail
Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail, 11 October 1918
Long Hours for Women
West Hartlepool Laundry Firm’s Difficulties
At West Hartlepool Police-court today, before Captain T.W. Willis (in the chair), Mr Weatherall and Councillor R. Coleman, Messrs Paterson and Hodgson were summoned under the Factory and Workshops Act. Mr. Geipal appeared for the defendants. There were 19 charges in respect to four women employed by the firm. Fanny Isabel Taylor, who represented the Home Office, said the proceedings were taken under Section 26 of the factory and Workman’s Act respecting the employment of women and young persons. The periods of employment stipulated were, with the exception of Saturday, 6am to 6pm, 7am to 7pm, and 8am to 8pm. The defendants, she said, were occupants of a large laundry, and employed 120 people, of whom 90 worked inside. In addition to domestic work they were doing a large amount of military work. The period of employment selected by them was 8 in the morning to 8 at night. Witness, however, went to the laundry on September 16th, at about 11pm at night and found about a dozen women and girls at work. She pointed out to the forewoman that this was illegal. It was stated that the women had been at work since 10 o’clock in the morning. Witness called again the next night, Tuesday September 17th, at 11 0’clock and found the same women and girls at work. The only time they had had off was from 5 o’clock in the morning till 8 o’clock. She found from the girls that this was no isolated case, but typical of what had been going on for weeks. She brought that number of cases before the bench to show that the offence was continuous. Instancing one case, witness said that the girl had worked 120 hours with only two nights rest. Since the war commenced, Miss Taylor said, there had been some relaxation of the regulations. And there was no reason why, if defendants had to take a lot of military work, they should not apply to have some arrangement made for the staff to work in shifts. There would not be the slightest difficulty in getting shifts, and in West Hartlepool there would not be any difficulty in getting any extra women labour required. For the defence, Mr Geipal, who admitted the charges, said the Factory Act was passed with a view to preventing sweated labour. During these strenuous times what were employers to do? This was work for the nation of the utmost importance. Military men were coming into billets from the camps and there were large quantities of linen, sheets and counterpanes which had to be washed in a great hurry. These things were thrown upon defendants to be done at once and what could they do but employ their staff overtime. It was not enforced work. The women clamoured for extra work and made no complaint about it. They were to the forewoman and said “ Please let us have any overtime there is”. There was a place on the premises, where, if they needed they might sleep. There was no necessity for them to work all the time for they could get a certain amount of rest when necessary. If this work was not done Messrs Hodgson and Paterson would lose many of their contracts. They had work sent even from Catterick, and if they could not take it, the work had to be sent to London to be done. There had been a great rush of work sent into the firm during that particular week, but the women had no pressure put upon them at all. They worked voluntarily. They were against outside labour being brought in. Surely, he contended, these Factory Act restrictions could be modified in such cases. The women were willing to forego a few hours’ sleep, he added. Mr Geipal suggested that a warning to defendants would meet the case, and said surely it would have been sufficient to bring only one charge to prove the case, instead of 19.
The Chairman said the magistrates felt bound to inflict fines, although they could realise to some extent the pressure being put upon the firm, and therefore did not wish to make fines in all instances. In three cases there would be fines of £3 in each case, and the defendants would also have to pay costs in the rest of the cases.
Date: 11-Oct-1918
Where to find this: British Newspaper Archive
Contributed by Mel Brown
