Would anyone know what former employment this classification might cover from the attached service record? Industry Group: ZTF Occupational Classification: ??? L + O. 8 perhaps? Any pointers gratefully received! Cheers Skip
I did try to do a bit of research on these codes a while back whilst looking at some RAF service records. I believe (but this is where I got stuck and I have no evidence) that the codes could be held as part of the files relating to the 1939 National Registration Scheme. These records are held by the National Health Service and I wrote to them to ask if they had these codes, but I didn't get a response so I "put it on the back burner". As I say, I have no evidence that this is correct (which was why I was researching it), but it may be an avenue that you wish to pursue (although it may be a blind alley). Regards Pete
Cheers Pete - that sounds like a logical avenue. I suspect from the man's residence that this particular classification is some sort of rural occupation. Perhaps an faster route might be for everyone to cross-reference known classifications although this would be a big ask. I appreciate your reply
Funnily enough that was suggested in a thread on one of the forums somewhere .... but there were not many (ie no) volunteers!. I will send another letter to the National Health Service to see if they respond this time. [UPDATE: Letter printed off, which will go in the post tomorrow] Regards Pete
The National Registration in 1939 was not concerned with detailed occupational classification, and it is not at all surprising that the NHS, at least at one remove from the National Registration, would be puzzled by being asked about it. Occupational classification was the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, and very detailed classifications were made. The coding system is doubtless buried in one of the LAB files in the National Archives, and it would probably take a little digging to find it.
Thanks Drayton Based on your feedback I may well be heading down a blind alley then .... hopefully the NHS will respond by saying that they were not responsible for the codes but they are in file XYZ at the National Archives ...... well I can dream! Regards Pete
A quick update to say that I received a letter back from the National Health Service today confirming that whilst occupations were recorded, they were not allocated any codes .... so that line of enquiry can be crossed off the list. Unfortunately (as we suspected) they did not provide any information on where they are held Regards Pete
It is hard to resist the temptation to say, "I told you so", but there it is. My knowledge of the system derives from my having known a Ministry of Labour civil servant who was one of the team visiting all parts of industry during and after WW2 taking careful notes of every detailed stage in manufacturing, noting specialised names for tasks in some cases, and giving each one a code. At least one booklet was published by the Ministry listing all the detailed names - I saw a copy many years ago - and it was regularly used as a reference manual within the ministry and by other people in industry. It must all be buried in the LAB files in the NA.
I believe it's the Ministry of Labour's ED 526 publication that's needed. A quick look at TNA's catalogue and the results are a little disjointed with results spread from 1931 onwards. However, this might answer the question: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C2699862 Lee
With the help of a colleague I am in the process of investigating the NA file mentioned in the last posting. However, in parallel, I have found an RAF Service Record with a classification of 210 and he is described as "Farm Labourer" so that may well be the designation for 210. I will see if we can get confirmation of that from the NA file. .... will keep you posted. Regards Pete
I posted on this subject a couple of years ago as I have several completely mysterious classifications on army service records - very frustrating trying to find out. Found one index only to discover later that it was American! My next trip to Kew will hopefully get to that file. Many thanks to those on here for their painstaking research and efforts.
UPDATE: A colleague (Nick Fenton) has kindly looked through LAB29/175 at the National Archives which contains a document entitled "ED526 revisions December 1941" showing the classification codes for the building trades only (36 pages of them!). The classifications for each trade are structured nnn.n, with nnn defining the category (eg Carpenter) and.n defining the role within that category (eg Foreman, fixer, jobbing carpenter etc). We have obtained a copy of the file so we may be able to clarify classifications in the building trade. The aim now is to see if we can locate the other trade files and the original set of classifications. I will keep you posted on progress. Regards (and thanks to Nick for his help and assistance) Pete
Yes, that is exactly the kind of classification of which I saw examples many years ago, and I always knew would be in the LAB files.
Nick Fenton has kindly obtained the next set of Occupational Classifications from the TNA (025 - 074 and 088 - 144), so we are now able to identify the trade(s) associated with these classifications (as well as the 001 - 024 and 075 - 087 ones that we previously had). The next job is to find the Dis. Codes, which I assume are District Codes ..... has anyone get any thoughts or ideas on where these may be held? Regards Pete
Good regarding the occupational classifications. On Dis. codes, "District" is a possibility, but, on balance, not very likely. As a location, district had a formal meaning, in the sense of urban or rural districts as local authority areas, but they applied only to a proportion of the population, others living in boroughs - municipal, county or metropolitan - with different local authority areas in Scotland. District in the informal sense of a small locality would have tremendous problems of boundary definition. Also, precise current residential location would not be particularly relevant to assessing potential use of a man within the armed forces. Dis could mean "disposal" in the sense of allocation to a particular category of personnel, in which case the coding probably related to the particular armed force concerned.
Thanks for all your amazing research and for being so willing to share what you have learned. I don't suppose you have the details of occupation classification 194/10? I suspect the 194 refers to my gr-uncle being a driver, but it would be good to have confirmation and to know what the 10 refers to. Thanks in advance.
