J. G. MCPHEKSON.

85

I.—r 6a.

on sick-leave could get the necessary rest they thought he required to recompense him for the loss he had suffered in the three years owing to sick-leave. I think from our point of view there could be no reasonable objection to the Department agreeing to what xve considered xvas a reasonable request. Each officer that volunteered was due so many days' leave, and, assuming that they were due fourteen days each, when their leave became due they xvould only receive thirteen, and the day deducted xvas to go towards obtaining fifteen days leave for this officer, and I think the action of the Department in refusing their request shows that they were being dealt xvith in a harsh manner. Sick-leave or ill health is the worst thing that any man can suffer from, and lam sure nobody would contend that a man gets sick on purpose. Besides being sick the man has additional expenses, such as doctor's fees, and I think it would only have been a fair thing to have allowed the officers to forego that day. I think, instead of dealing with all of us on the same lines, that the Department should pick out the malingerers and deal xvith them, and I consider it shows weakness that this has not been done. In the case of tin officer defrauding the Department of cash, the Department would not turn round on his colleagues in the office and say that you have gol to make that cash up, and I contend that exactly the same argument applies to sick-leave deducted. I trust that we will get some relief particularly in this connection, because it is a mattei that is causing a great deal of irritation and discontent throughout the xvhole service, and I ask the Committee to consider the question on its merits. Thai is all I have to say. 2. Mr. Ramsay.] The Regulations 55 and 56 which you referred to are as follows: " 55. The General Manager may, at such times as in his opinion are convenient, grant to members leave of absence on pa\ as follows : (a.) To each member of the First Division, for each continuous year's service, ii total of two weeks in eaeli calendar year, in addition to the four departmental holidays Christinas Day, Good Friday. Labour Day, and Sovereign's birthday—or days in lieu of such departmental holidays: Provided, however, that in all case- where sick-leave is granted on full pay to members of Division I the period covered by such ieave shall he deducted from the ordinal \ leave specified herein, (b.) To each member of the Second Division entitled to overtime, for each continuous year's service, seven working-days in each calendar year, such leave to include tin four departmental holidays mentioned above: (c.) To each member in the Second Division not entitled to overtime, for each continuous year's service, ten working-days in each calendar year, sin-ii leave to include the four departmental holidays mentioned above. No member shall be entitled to claim leave of absence iis ii right. All such leave shall be granted at tiie option of the General .Manager, and be subject to good behaviour and satisfactory conduct of the member. and may he refused in cases where the General Manager considers such action necessary. Am member may, on application and at the discretion of the Genera] .Manager, be allowed to accumulate his annual leave for two years. The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Genera] Manager, grant to any member for special services, or under special circumstances, such additional leave as he may deem proper. 56. Subject to the product in,, of a satisfactory certificate from a medical practitioner, or a copy of such certificate attested by an officer of a friendly society, any member in the First Division shall be entitled to full pay when absent from duty owing in illness for any period up to four weeks oi such absence. No further payment shall he made without the authority of the Minister." Sou have seen those regulations? -Yes. •'i. (hin '.on suggest any reason why the Postal officer should lie- granted one week more annual leave than the Railway officer? —I can give no reason. I. Mr. Young.] You stated that Postal officers received payment for overtime: are you quite certain of that?- —I understand the regulations provide for that, and I have been fold by a man working in the Postal Department thai thai is the case. 5. Can you quote anj oases where officers of the Railway Department have not had any leave for two or three years.' --[ have the whole of the correspondence in connection with the case I quoted, and, if necessary, the name of the officer could be quoted. I believe some of the other members here can substantiate other cases. 6. Do you know of any cases where this regulation has seriously impaired the health of any officer —that is. through returning to duty to save his annual leave when he really should have gone home sick? —No, I cannot fjuote any ease except from xvhat I have been told, out I have been told that that is the case. 7. Mr. McVilly.] Mr. McPherson, you stated. I think, just now that the alteration in the Postal regulation was in the direction of providing three weeks and two weeks instead of twentyone days and fourteen days? The statement has been handed in. 8. Does this statement refer to the recent alteration in the Civil Service?—lt is stated therein that it does. 9. Now, do the Postal officers when they go on leax'e get free railway passes?---.No, they do not. 10. And the Railxvay men do?— That is so. 11. Do you know what xvould be the cost to the Railway Department of bringing the Railxvav officers' leave into line xvith the Postal Department/ That is xvhat you are asking, T take it?—Yes, that is what xve are asking. I have not xvorked out the cost. 12. Do you know of any cases in xvhich the xvhole of the time thai a man has been off on sickleave has been deducted from bis annual leave when the time that lie litis been off sick has been in excess of the leave that he is entitled to? If a man has been off forty-two days sick and he has got eighteen days' leave due, do you know of any case in which the Department has deducted tin additional fourteen days?—-No, but we are allowed to accumulate two years' leave, and I have been informed hut 1 have no written proof of it—thai he would lose all the leave if lie had been away sick for the same period of time —it would be ttiken off the two years' leave. IS. Provided he were paid for the same time or the excess time that he xvas away on sickness? No, the actual time he was off sick would be deducted from this accumulated leave. 11. The actual time he xvas off sick?--Yes.