From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Operational and staffing effects of reducing chassis output to 1,000 per annum.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 18\6\ Scan212 | |
| Date | 27th October 1920 guessed | |
| HS.{Lord Ernest Hives - Chair} (5) Effect on Works if output of chassis was reduced say to 1,000 per annum. From present 40/50 H.P. chassis. There are a total of 880 parts which it may be possible to make in our own Works during the next twelve months; that we are at present buying out. This total comprises a large number of small and large pressings and to enable us to make these pressings a large press will need to be bought. The making of these parts will approximately absorb the effort of about 200 men weekly on our machines, so that it will be seen that to reduce the output to 1000 chassis per annum would very seriously affect the Works. In getting out the estimate we have ignored for the moment the large amount of Aero Engine work we are doing, both new and repairs, and also the repair to chassis, and have assumed that this work is likely to continue. If we are compelled to reduce to 1000 chassis per annum we should have to abolish entirely our night shift, which would mean roughly the discharge of 1300 men, mainly machine men on productive labour, and in addition we should possibly have to discharge about 200 machine men on days, and there would approximately be about 250 machines idle in the day time. We should also have to discharge approximately 500 Fitters and Erectors. There would be little or no change in our foundry, forge, sheetmetal and coppersmith departments, indeed one or two of them might be a little busier, owing to making the parts that we buy outside at present. There would be a definite reduction in the Test Department of 50%. In addition it would leave a lot of our plant idle in various other departments, such as Hardening shop, Whitemetal Shop, Brazers, Glazers, etc. The problem is very complex and to our minds not in any way satisfactory to the Company, and the very last thing we should resort to. It would, in the main, get rid of almost half our productive labour and when it came to a weeding out of our unproductive labour we should find that we could not reduce this by anything near half, so that our overheads would effect us very seriously. | ||