Buffnut453 Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 One of my relatives, William Gordon Haselden, served in the Labour Corps. He enlisted on 26 Feb 1916 but went immediately into the reserves awaiting mobilization. He had a medical in May 1916 that declared him temporarily unfit due to his not meeting the required chest expansion measurement. He came back for 2 further medical exams in Aug and Nov of that year, eventually being passed Class C. He was mobilized on 20 February 1917 and posted to the 17th Labour Company, King's Liverpool Regiment, with a service number 66379. The record notes that he was posted from the South Lancashire Regiment Depot but the South Lancs Regt does not appear listed in his units so I presume that was just his reporting location once he was mobilized? He embarked for France on 6 Mar 1917. On 14 May 1917 he was "Transferred and posted" to the 73rd Labour Company, Labour Corps. Presumably it was at this time he received a new service number, 43438. On 1 Sep 1917 he was posted to the 31st Labour Group Headquarters and seems to have remained in that organization for the rest of the war. I have a couple of questions about the documents in his personnel file. The first one relates to the move from 73rd Labour Company to the 31st Labour Group HQ. The form mentioning that move mentions the section in which he served in the 73rd Coy but I can't make out the Section name (possibly Life G&S Section???). My second question relates to the "Casualty Form" page from his personnel file which appears to show him belonging to the 8th Labour Company, King's Liverpool Regiment (see second attachment). There's no other mention of this Coy in his record. Might it be an admin mistake? Many thanks for any pointers on these questions. Kind regards, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 15 minutes ago, Buffnut453 said: I can't make out the Section name (possibly Life G&S Section???). The first bit isn't 'Life', it's 'O i/c ' meaning Officer in Charge. I'll look at the full size image on Ancestry and see what the next bit is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardenerbill Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 On the first form it's probably 'Received From ...Oi/C' meaning Officer in charge Dai you beat me by a few seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 (edited) I wonder if it's a signature of the Officer in Charge? The same information is also written on page 350 (the above form is page 359). The writing appears to be in the same handwriting, and on p350 looks more like a signature. Edited 16 January , 2018 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Evans Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 On the formation of the Labour Corps in May 1917, the 8th ILC King's became 73 Company Labour Corps. Service number 43438 is within the batch for 73 Company. I haven't looked through his record, but he may have moved from the 17th to the 8th ILC between joining andMay. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 16 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: The first bit isn't 'Life', it's 'O i/c ' meaning Officer in Charge. I'll look at the full size image on Ancestry and see what the next bit is... 1 hour ago, Gardenerbill said: On the first form it's probably 'Received From ...Oi/C' meaning Officer in charge Dai you beat me by a few seconds. I now have a large red mark on my forehead...and it's still tingling. You may have heard the slap from wherever you are in the world. It was some face-palm I gave myself, I can tell you! What a plonker I am! Of course Oi/c makes perfect sense I should have known that. Yours (feeling really, REALLY stoopid!), Mark Edited 16 January , 2018 by Buffnut453 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 16 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2018 1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: I wonder if it's a signature of the Officer in Charge? The same information is also written on page 350 (the above form is page 359). The writing appears to be in the same handwriting, and on p350 looks more like a signature. Pg 350 looks to read "Authy OC Labour Corps Section" with initials following whereas on pg 359 it looks more like F&S Section or something like that. I can't imagine why the Oi/c would sign that form because it simply identifies the losing unit. That said, I'm still at a loss to know what it means...and there's a chance your idea is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 16 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2018 1 hour ago, Phil Evans said: On the formation of the Labour Corps in May 1917, the 8th ILC King's became 73 Company Labour Corps. Service number 43438 is within the batch for 73 Company. I haven't looked through his record, but he may have moved from the 17th to the 8th ILC between joining and May. Phil6 Thanks Phil. That's a big help. The only event in his record between mobilization and joining 73rd Labour Company is a reference to him deploying to the BEF on 6 Mar 1917. I wonder if that was when he moved over to the 8th ILC, KLR? There's no reference in any of his postings or other movements to the 8th ILC, at least none that I can detect (some of the writing is barely decipherable due to the fire damage. Cheers, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 41 minutes ago, Buffnut453 said: I can't imagine why the Oi/c would sign that form because it simply identifies the losing unit. I agree, but it's written sloppily, just like someone signing his autograph, whereas the rest is reasonably lucid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 16 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 16 January , 2018 2 hours ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: I agree, but it's written sloppily, just like someone signing his autograph, whereas the rest is reasonably lucid. You could be right, Dai. If nobody comes along with a good idea for a possible acronym, we may have to accept that we're looking at some weird signature on the form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 Looks to me like Oi/c No8 Section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 16 January , 2018 Share Posted 16 January , 2018 47 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said: Looks to me like Oi/c No8 Section That would be one weird 'N'. But I think you're right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 17 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 17 January , 2018 5 hours ago, ss002d6252 said: Looks to me like Oi/c No8 Section That's certainly a possibility...although it's frustratingly non-descriptive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffnut453 Posted 17 January , 2018 Author Share Posted 17 January , 2018 Thanks for all the inputs, folks. I recently purchased "No Labour, No Battle" in hopes it might shed some light on a couple of relatives who served in the Labour Corps. Sadly, there's no coverate of 17 ILC KLR, 73 Labour Coy or 31 Labour Group HQ. I'm therefore presuming there are no detailed records available (apparently all the Labour Group returns were destroyed by German bombs in WW2) and so there's little chance of discovering where the units were deployed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now