The Cine Technician (1943 - 1945)

July— August, 1944 THE C I N E T E C H N I C I A N 67 B. UNDERWOOD (Kay's, Finsbury Park)— R.A.F. D. WALKER (Printing Trainee, Cinit Labs)— L. F. WASHBOURNE (Printer, G.F.D. Labs — Army. B. WATERSON (Assist. Camera, Denham)— — H.M. Forces. E. R. WEBSTER (Despatch Clerk, Paramount News) — Navy. MISS R. WHITE (Drying. Kay's, Finsbury Park) — A.T.S. T. WILLIAMS (Art Assistant, Ealing Studios)— H.M. Forces. \NDREW WILSON (Tracer, Halas-Batchelor)— Navy. Promotions PETER HOPKINSON, promoted Lieutenant, Army Film Unit. Casualties . C. CRAWLEY, formerly Camera Assistant, Welwyn Studios, killed in flying accident while serving with R.A.F. ROBERT DAY (Sgt. Army Film Unit). Killed while scrying with the Army Film Unit on the Cassino Front, March 17th,* 1944. M)XALD GILES, former Assistant Projectionist, Denham Labs. Killed in action in Italy, April 30th, 1944. \.. H. HARTNFP, King's Royal Rifles. Reported Prisoner of War. OBITUARY There can be few old-timers in the film busiin ss vho did not know and respect Charles Tokeley, vho died, after a few weeks' illness, on April 30th. He entered the film business in 1910, and, joinng the Gaumont Company, remained under their lanner throughout his career except for the spell if service he saw in the first World War. For the >ast few years he had been with G.B. Equipnents, G.B. Screen Services and, finally, sini e he war, with G.B.I. All his work was characterised by thoroughness nd reliability; C.T. was an incurable, irrepresible optimist, to whom no situation was beyond olution ; before his disarming personality everyhing fell into line. Toke, in fact, had become an istitution. He leaves a widow, two sons and a daughter. 5oth boys are in the Forces — the elder, a prisoner l Jap hands. D.C. REINSTATEMENT — (continued from page 65) employed by the firm. If this Mr. Jones had not been called to the forces and had continued in employment with the firm, it would not be reasonable and practicable under the Act to dismiss Mr. Jones to make room for Mr. Brown. Let's take am tther example. Say Mr. White had started with the firm in July, 1939, and Mr. Green had started in August, 1939; Mr. White was called up in September, 19,39, but Mr. (ireen was not called up at all. On the demobilisation of Mr. White, the firm would be under the obligation to reinstate him, even though it meant dismissing All'. (Ireen, whose service with the firm would be five or six years compared to Mr. White's two months. Special provision is made in the Art for cases of changes of ownership, amalgamation, etc. In cases where a person is released from the sen i( 1 s but is prevented from exercising his reinstatement rights because of his direction to other work by the Minister of Labour, the reinstatement righls are preserved, subject to certain qualificat ions, until the end of the further period of service. In addition to these reinstatement proposals the Government have already introduced training for the disabled, and in framing this latter measure the T.U.C. played a full part. Resettlement generally and full employment are problems of a wider character, and both the Government and the T.U.C. have these questions under active consideration. The T.U.C. have raised during the last two years, but without success, the proposal that reinstatement rights should include those workers who in the interests of the nation have been transferred from their own jobs to others more urgently necessary for w inning the war. The Reinstatement Act is a valuable contribution towards general resettlement in industry. It is not regarded, hewever, either by the Government or the T.U.C, as being the last word on general resettlement. LONDON TRADES COUNCIL— (Concluded) After a resolution to proceed to next business had been defeated, the A. C.T. delegation agreed to refer their resolution to the Executive Committee of the London Trades Council for necessan consideration and action. This was agreed unanimously, after the speeches of Elvin and Bond had been most favourably received by the delegates. The A. C.T. delegation expressed its keen pleasure at the outcome, as it believes that the monopoly danger in the British film industry requires the most careful investigation and discussion by the entire Trade Union Movement. A subsequent resolution on the Agenda, which was carried unanimously, put on record that the London Trades Council was in favour of the national ownership of the most essential industries in Britain.