Rushden Local Tribunal - Shoe Trade Cases – Adjourned Until After Sept 25th.
Important Regulation
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden on Tuesday night, when there were present Messrs T. Swindall (chairman), H. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., O. Bates, and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. W. H. Beetenson (deputy clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.

A firm of corn merchants appealed for a married man, aged 27, who also appealed personally on the grounds of physical unfitness for military service, as he could not walk without a special boot. There are three partners in the firm. The elder one has just returned from active service at the front, being time-expired, and on his return his two brothers enlisted. Conditional exemption for the man was granted.

A married man, aged 36, working in a shoe factory, appealed. He is an out-patient of Northampton Hospital. He produced a certificate showing that when attested he was rejected as being unfit for military service. –The Chairman: They cannot send you.

The latest list of certified occupations which was presented to the Tribunal, has some important references to the boot and shoe trade, as follow:–

All married foremen are reserved, as are all unmarried foremen 30 years of age and over.

With regard to clickers, sole cutters, lasting machine operators, pulling-over machine operators, and screwing machine operators, all men in these occupations are reserved up to Sept. 25th, after which date the age limits will be 41 for single men and 25 for married men.

As to all other classes of workmen in the boot and shoe industry, single men are not reserved, but all married men are reserved up to Sept. 25th, after which there will be an age limit of 25 for married men.

All shoe trade appeals were consequently adjourned until after Sept. 25th. see also Boot & Shoe Trade in WWI

Chelveston - Conditional Exemption was granted by the Rushden Tribunal on Tuesday in the case of a Chelveston man employed by a Rushden dairyman.

Rushden Echo, 28^th July 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Shoe Trade Cases - Important Statement by Capt Wright

The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., C. Bates and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo S. Mason (hon clerk) and Mr. W. L. Beetenson (deputy clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.

The manager of a picture-house appealed for his operator and electrician, aged 34, married, unattested. – The Military Representative objected on the ground that the work is not of national importance. – Applicant: It would be quite impossible to replace the man. – adjourned for a week.

A firm of boot manufacturers appealed for their London representative, aged 40, married, with three children. – Exemption until Oct 1^st granted.

Captain Wright, military representative for the district, attended in order to consult with the Tribunal with regard to the shoe trade cases. He said that he was being pulled in two directions. The Army Council wanted men and the Army Clothing Department wanted material. In some of the boot factories in the county he found that war badges had been given to the younger men (who otherwise would be liable for military service), and the older men (who were ineligible) did not receive them. Consequently, in such factories, they were keeping the whole of their men. Capt. Wright hinted that in the near future these badges might be recalled. Rushden had sent more men into the Army proportionately than two larger towns in the county, but still there were many single men who ought to be available. He had come to an arrangement with the manufacturers of Rushden, whereby they agreed to release 98 of the younger men for the Army, and he asked the Tribunal to confirm the arrangement he had made with the Manufacturers’ Association. In consultation with the association he had agreed to temporary exemption for a number of boot operatives until Oct 1^st, which would see them through the order for the Cossack boot and the Field Service boot. Should the same conditions obtain at the expiration of that period, then they would formally ask the Tribunal for a further extension of the period of exemption in accordance with the requirements of the R.A.C.D. for boots. He suggested that the exemptions should be subject to the condition that the firm continue on Government work and subject to future legislation. To take away men now, when the establishments were in the midst of important contracts, even if the men were unmarried, would upset the factories. The arrangement made with the Manufacturers’ Association applied only to operatives. It did not apply to managers, or clerical staff, or to partners, whose appeals, he suggested, should be dealt with separately, on their merits.

The Tribunal then went carefully into each individual case.

Rushden Local Tribunal – Interesting Cases
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present: Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo, S. Mason (hon. Clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.

A Rushden trading society appealed for an assistant in one department in which, the society’s manager stated, they were working with the minimum strength.—The assistant, who lives at New Wymington, was a married man, with one child. The Military Representative urged that the staff in that department, five in number, was larger than absolutely necessary.—Appeal dismissed.

The same society also appealed for the manager of a branch shop, a married man aged 33.—The Advisory Committee did not consider the man essential to the business, on the ground that the work could be done by another man who had been rejected as unfit for military service.—The manager of the society stated that they had allowed all single men to go and all "understudies", and were only asking for those in certified trades.—Application refused on the ground that the man could be replaced.

A Nottingham tradesman appealed for the manager of his Rushden business, a married man, aged 39.—Two months’ exemption.

A firm applied for the driver of a motor vehicle, a single man, aged 23, who had served in the Motor Transport Corps and was now time-expired. It was stated that all the other men had gone.—A month allowed (final).

A money-lender and commission agent, 35, married, with four children, applied for exemption in order to arrange his affairs.—Appeal dismissed.

At the County Appeals Tribunal on Friday last Frank King (25), lift manufacturer and stiffener, Park-place, Rushden, asked for exemption on business grounds. He said he was the only male in the business, and he delivered the goods personally by motor van.—Exemption to Oct. 31st.

Rushden Local Tribunal – More Men Wanted - Colonel Fawcett’s Request
The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present: Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo. S. Mason (hon. Clerk). Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.

Colonel Fawcett and Captain Wright attended, and the former urged the great need for fit men. Many men were wanted to fill up the gaps caused in the big advance.

A hairdresser and tobacconist, single, 25 years of age, who had been passed for garrison duty only, and who had been previously granted temporary exemption, again appealed. The Advisory Committee were of opinion that it was not in the national interests that the appellant should be retained in his present employment.—One month’s exemption, without leave to appeal again.

A watchmaker, jeweller, and optician, single, 26 years of age, previously granted temporary exemption, again appealed. He had been medically examined, and passed for garrison duty abroad.—One month’s exemption, final.

An insurance company applied for exemption for a superintendent.—One month, final.

A dairy farmer, cowman, and stock-breeder, single, aged 29, was granted two months’ exemption, to be final.

A boot manufacturer appealed for a confidential clerk, aged 28, single, and it was stated that he had charge of a number of enterprises outside the factory.—Captain Wright said he thought he could find the firm a man 40 years of age who would do the work.—Appeal dismissed.

A heel manufacturer, married, working for himself, appealed on conscientious grounds.—Adjourned for a week.

Rushden Echo, 8th September 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Rushden Local Tribunal - Boot and Shoe Trade Cases
Some Interesting Appeals

The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present: Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo. S. Mason (hon. Clerk).  Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.

Several boot factory employees whose names had been accidentally omitted from the lists submitted by the firms to the Tribunal were granted exemption until Sept. 30^th.

An appeal on domestic grounds was made by a married man, aged 33, who looked after the gas plant at a factory and had a mother, wife, and child dependent upon him.  His mother, who had been living with him for years, had recently broken her thigh, and was still in bed.  She suffered with chronic rheumatics, and had to be washed and dressed.  She was 75 years of age.  He was quite willing to do his part when things at home improved.  – Case adjourned for a week.

A pianoforte dealer and tuner, who had applied for exemption, said that 65 per cent of his business was yearly contracts.  He had not yet received payment for that percentage of his work.  He had to live all that time and pay rent and rates.  He only had the business a year. – The application was refused, the Tribunal holding that the business was not in the national interest.  They considered that arrangement could be made to carry on the business during war-time.

A further exemption for a month was granted to a single man, aged 23, partner in a business.  It was stated that the other partner was with the colours and that all the employees had joined the Forces except one assistant who was suffering from illness.  The Tribunal urged that a manager not of military age should be secured.

Rushden Echo, 15^th September 1916, transcribed by Gill Hollis

Agricultural Case - Some Interesting Appeals

The Local Tribunal for Rushden sat at the Council Buildings, Rushden, on Monday night, when there were present:  Messrs. T. Swindall (chairman), F. Knight, J.P., G. Miller, J.P., C.A., and C. Cross, C.C., with Mr. Geo. S. Mason (hon. Clerk).  Mr. John S. Mason was the military representative.

Mr. Eady Robinson (Higham Ferrers) represented agriculture.

A firm of curriers applied for a man, whose badge has not yet been withdrawn. – Adjourned for a fortnight.

An agriculturist, with two farms of 500 and 600 acres respectively, appealed for his son, single, aged 21, described as a farmer, agricultural machinery and engine driver, mechanic, and repairer of machinery.  Applicant said that his son was the only man of military age left on the two farms, five men having joined the Colours.  His son was the only man who could drive the engines, shear all the sheep, cut up the food for the pigs, etc.  He had now only three regular men and some boys. – Mr. Eady Robinson stated that the instructions of the Board of Agriculture were that the age limit should not be pressed too much in such cases, and added that the applicant’s son was working very hard. – Exemption till Oct 31^st.

A master butcher, with a shop at the top end of the town, a single man, aged 32, appealed for exemption, and stated that the man who worked for him had joined the Colours.  It was stated that there was now no other shop at that end of the town. – Exemption until Oct. 31^st.

An engineer in the boot and shoe trade, aged 28, married, was granted two months’ exemption.

A horse slaughterer appealed for his son, aged 25, single, and said that his other son had been called up.  It was stated that the work of the man was important from the public health standpoint. – Two months’ exemption.

A baker, supplying 300 customers, appealed for a single man, aged 25. – Two months granted.

A father appealed on domestic grounds for his son, who, he said, was the only one in his family who was not a cripple.  He wanted the son to look after the family. – The Chairman said that the Tribunal sympathised with the applicant but felt that there was not sufficient evidence to justify them in exempting the son. – Application dismissed.