I.—6a.

2

[d. bamsat.

more work for the same pay, and often more work than his predecessor in office was called upon to do. The plan adopted is a delightfully simple one from the point of view of those in authority. A sixth-grade member, say, retires from the service, thereby creating a vacancy in that particular grade; he is promply replaced by a seventh-grade member, who is entitled, if only by reason of his ability to perform the duties appertaining to the position, to promotion to the higher grade, but who is called upon to perform those duties at the salary lie was in receipt of at the time of his transfer. The foregoing is a typical example of what is going on. Now, clause 7 deals with the system of promotion in the Railway service. We submit that this is a very serious matter, and deals with a practice which has caused considerable feeling amongst the officers, and which, we regret to say, has opened the door to the system of promotion through favouritism. The officers recognize that promotion should not depend on seniority alone, but the}' consider that when the}- have been passed over without apparently any reason that some explanation should be forthcoming. After some considerable difficulty a promise was extracted from the General Manager, by direction of the Minister of Railways, to furnish the officers with the reasons why their promotion was withheld, but, needless to say, the promise has never been fulfilled. Now, clause 6 and clauses 8, !), and 10 of the petition all deal with the same question—that is, the remuneration of officers. All that we ask is that the Act shall be amended so as to provide that in all cases where the traffic is maintained vacancies occurring in the service shall be filled by officers in similar grades to those of the officers whose positions they are required to fill, and that the positions in the service which have been reduced in status during the last few years shall be restored, and that the Railway officers shall not be less efficiently remunerated than the officers of the Post and Telegraph Department. We propose producing figures to show the rapid increase in railway business, and we submit that this in itself is a sufficient argument that there should be a revision of the salaries paid to Railway officers. Notwithstanding such increase, there has been a decrease in salaries. In 1908 the total salaries amounted to £285,340, which represented 10 - 33 per cent, of the earnings — £2,761,938. In 1911 the salaries amounted to £326,064, or 9"33 per cent., a decrease of 1 per cent., which is a saving of approximately £34,000. From this it will be manifest that the Classification Act, which was intended to improve the conditions of the service, has been used in the opposite direction as affecting t|je officers above the lowest grade. This will be more dearly understood when we say that the number of promotions in the four lowest grades under the Act of 1901—that is, grades 9, 8, 7, and 6—averaged 105 per annum, a total of 315 for the three years ending 31st March, 1907, whereas for the next three years ending 31st March, 1910, the promotions in the six lowest grades 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5, under the Act of 1908, averaged 45 officers per annum —a total of 134 for the three years. Of this number, 95 officers were promoted on the Ist April, 1908, the large number on this occasion being due to the coming into operation of the Act of 1908. Only 7 officers were promoted in 1909, and 32 in 1910—that is, in giades from 10 to 9. We submit that this policy of withholding promotions is a bad one, and undoubtedly discourages officers and stifles the incentive to do good work. Men of long and efficient service are justly entitled to expect that the avenues for advancement should be increased and not decreased. The Department will no doubt say that there is a difficulty in finding sufficient positions to enable more promotions to be made, but we maintain that such a difficulty would disappear if the question of grading the positions was properly considered by the Department. We claim, sir, that a very large number of positions are underpaid, and on this point information will be laid before you. Assuming, however, that the positions created in 1908 were fixed on a fair basis, which we deny, we say that the increase in the business since that time warrants the raising of very many of the positions, as a number of the positions carry no more salary now than they did in 1903. Now, we come to the combined positions of Postmaster and Stationmaster, and in this connection we will give a few instances showing the utter disregard of the Department in assessing the work at a fair value. At Orepuki the Stationmaster, who controls both the railway and postal business, receives a salary of £250 per annum. The postal business alone is of such volume as to warrant the payment by the Postal Department to the Railway Department of £200 per annum I'm , the- work performed on behalf of the former Department. At Amberley the Stationmaster receives £220 per annum, and the postal allowance to the Railway Department was £225 per annum : that's £5 in excess of the salary paid by the Railway Department for conti oiling the combined duties. The Stationmaster at Lumsden receives £255 per annum, and the postal allowance is £120; at Riversdale the Stationmaster receives £220, and the postal allowance is £120; at Omakau the Stationmaster receives £200, and the postal allowance is £124; and at Normanby the Stationmaster receives £200, and the postal allowance is £120. All those positions are busy railway offices, and it will be seen that in many cases the cost of the Railway Department controlling the combined positions is very considerably decreased by the amount ]>:ii<l by the Postal Department for the postal work. You will see, therefore, that in the case of Amberley the cost of control is nil ; in the case of Orepuki the cost t<. the Railway Department is £50, and in the case of Riversdale and Lumsden £100 per annum each. Many more examples of this description could be given if necessary. It is interesting to note that the amount collected by the Railway Department from the Postal Department for postal work done under the supervision of Railway Stationmasters is £9,500 per annum. We do not see any reason why the Railway officers should not be paid on the same scale as the officers in the Post and Telegraph Department, and we feel convinced that if the Committee analyses the statements which we shall place before them that they will see at once the justice of our claims, and that a favourable recommendation should be made. I might say that, so far as the remaining clauses are concerned, we have set apart different men to deal with them, so that I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, and I will make my remarks about these clauses as short as possible. We will pass over clause 11 and come to clause 12. Now, what we submit in regard to clause 12 is that the legal interpretation of this clause is that officers are entitled to full pay when absent from duty owing to illness for any period up to four weeks, and that where the four weeks have expired