65

B. W. MCVILLY.

I.—6a.

made on during Mr. 's regime that he is incapable of satisfactorily performing the duties required of an officer in the sixth grade, and in the circumstances I regret that it will be necessary to reduce him to the seventh grade and to remove him from . With regard to , it has from the outset been apparent that he was not qualified for the position of clerk in grade 9. He has signally failed ever since he was promoted, and must be held primarily responsible for the unsatisfactory condition of the booking office, and in the circumstances there is no alternative but to reduce him to grade 10. Please notify him accordingly. Arrangements will be- made to transfer him to the North Island in connection with the changes that will shortly be necessary. With regard to Cadet , the position has been accentuated by the failure of the Stationmaster and Booking Clerk in the matter of supervision, and it has been decided to give ■ the benefit of the doubt. He is, however, to be severely reprimanded and notified that his increase will be withheld for twelve months, and also informed that unless lie forthwith improves in respect to both the accuracy and method of conducting his work his services will be dispensed with." 2. Mr. Ross.] What is the object of putting all this on record? —The object of this is that the Officers' Institute have made a statement in the petition to the effect that the present system of promotion is unsatisfactory because inefficient officers are promoted. I say that no officer is promoted unless the man immediately in charge recommends him, and I am showing now that the Stationmasters and other men in charge of clerks, and even District Officers, who are responsible for the recommendation of men to higher positions, an- not making proper recommendations, and therefore they tire placing the Head Office in a false position. It has got to fight from the Ist January till the 31st December every year to do the square thing and to get it done. It has to question a large number of recommendations, and I am reading copies of correspondence thai has taken place respecting them. 3. But that last report had no bearing on the question of promotion?— Pardon me, it had. It had this bearing: Those men were promoted on the recommendation of the District Officers, who allowed inefficient men to remain in positions right within their own line of vision—under their immediate notice. They never made an adverse report until a series of irregularities were liroiight under the notice of flu- Head Office, and the Head Office took action. 4. It is not borne out in that last statement? —Pardon me, we disagree on that point, I think. "25th September, 1908.—At the last review of staff my recommendation xvas 'Scale increase recommended,' and I proposed that he should be classified in grade I, maximum £450; but I observe from the D.-3 list just issued that Mr. has been promoted from grade 4 to grade 3 (£470 to £525). Had 1 understood thai the recommendation for scale increase could be construed to mean promotion to a higher grade I would have reconsidered the matter, and I think it is to be regretted that my attention was not called to the matter, as I shall now have the unpleasant duty of declining to certify for scale increases, because I consider that Mr. 's services are amply paid at £150." 1 want to direct attention particularly to that. On the 30th September the Head Office then wrote: "Previous to Ist April last Mr. was classified in grade 3 of Act of 1901, which allowed him to reach £500 by annual increments provided certificate was not forthcoming that he was not worthy of the increase. The Act of 1907 could not take from him any rights he enjoyed under the previous Act, and he had to be placed in grade 3 (£470 to £525) from Ist April. If you are satisfied that his services are not worth any more than £470 per annum you should certify to same when next annual increment is due in April next." Now, up to the present time that officer, notwithstanding that first letter, has been recommended for his increase up to £525 by the same officer xvho told us in April, 190S, that the man was only worth £450. Now, what is the Head Office to do in a case of that kind? You compare the recommendations, you ask the officer responsible for explanation, and you are told Yes to-day and No to-morrow. When you give a man something which he is legally entitled to you are told, "If I had known such-and-such I would have recommended so-and-so." Then we say we cannot withhold from this man something to which he is entitled unless you are prepared to certify that he is not worth it and make a recommendation ; but we do not get that recommendation. In another case a clerk was not recommended :we got one of those Yes-No reports. When we were asked whether, as this man had not had a chance to qualify in certain work, he was to get his increase or not, the answer was —" The question is, does give proper attention to his work and display a desire to acquire a knowledge of the business? If so, the fact that he has not qualified through lack of opportunity is not sufficient reason for withholding the increase. Please remark as to this." The remark we got to that was a recommendation for increase, and he has had the recommendation every year since. Here is another case. 5. The Chairman.] You are reading those, Mr. McVilly, to show that the Head Office is not responsible for keeping some of the men back, but that their own immediate officers are responsible? —Yes, that is so. 6. Well, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that in clause 7 the institute does not allege that the Head Office is responsible —it simply says that the system of promotion is defective? —Yes, I recognize that. We say it is not the system that is defective: it is the fact that the men who are immediately in control of those men and who are responsible for making recommendations do not do their duty. 7. Could not that be the result of the system?—No, sir. I take it that no system —it does not matter what system you hay be satisfactory if the man that you pay to take the responbility does not take it and does not conscientiously do his duty—then no system can be perfect. 8. But if yon happen to know that in the Head Office, is it not the duty of the Head Office, then, to make the system as perfect as possible? —We endeavour every year to bring about a better state of things. Every case that comes under notice is taken up. It is very easy to make a statement that the system is this or that or the next thing, but the efficiency of your system, to come

9—l. 6a.