J. G. MCPHERSON.

89

I.—Oα.

90. The Chairman.] You suggested, Mr. McPherson, in answer to a question, that it would be better for a man to get a medical certificate every time he went off on condition that the sick-leave did not interfere with the holiday leave? —Yes. A supposititious case was put that if a man went off one day a month and 1 had him on my staff, xvhat steps xvould I take to prevent that, and I said I xvould refer the matter to my District Officer, and I also said that in a case like that I xvould ask for a certificate if he made a rule of being off one day, in order to stamp out malingering. 91. But then under the present conditions —by "present conditions" I mean the forfeiture of holiday leave on account of sick-leave —you would not suggest a man should get a certificate every time?— No. 92. But if the Department reverted to the old conditions in xvhich sick-leave did not interfere with annual leave, then you suggest the Department should protect itself by asking for a certificate every time a man xvent off?— Yes, that xvould be the suggestion. 93. You suggested that every time a man went off even if it were only for a day he should, in your opinion, be asked to furnish the Department xvith a certificate? —Yes, if I suspected him of being a malingerer. 94. But not make it general?—No, sir. 95. Do you think it xvould be right to make it general on condition that the Department reverted to the old condition of things by xvhich sick-leave did not interfere with holiday leave?— Well, it xvould be a very hard matter, because in an isolated country place you could not get the certificate. I answered that question in so far as it personally applied to myself, that if I had a man on my staff xvho xvent off regularly one day a month what would I do, and I said I xvould make him produce a certificate. Richard William McVilly further examined. (No. 21.) 1. The Chairman.] You xvish to give evidence on behalf of the Department in regard to Clauses 12 and 13? —Yes, sir. As to the statement in clause 12—" That it is provided by Regulation 55 of the Act that the General Manager may, at such times as in his opinion are convenient, grant to each officer leave of absence on pay for each continuous year's service a total of two xx-eeks " —so far as that is concerned, it is in accordance xvith the regulation. The question, I take it, that is before the Committee is not the sufficiency of these fourteen days' leave, but the question of the right of the Department to deduct from the leave the time that members have been absent from duty sick xvhile in receipt of full pay. Now, this question of sick-leave has been a burning one xvith the Department for a very long time. Originally, in fact I think as recently as 1894, the practice, in the service was that members off duty on sick-leave were not paid. Where officers xvent off duty owing to sickness in those days the practice xvas for the officer to request the Department to pay him for the time lie was off equivalenl to any holidays that xx-ere due to him. When the Government resumed control of the Railxvays they discontinued this practice, and, as a concession to the staff, agreed to grant pay during sickness. 2. Mr. Ross.] Does this apply to a few days' sickness or extended leave?—l am speaking of the question generally. Now, sir, it very early became apparent that unfair advantage was being taken to a greater or lesser extent of the concession Liven by the Department, and it was found that the number of relieving officers required to overtake and keep leave up to date was a constantly increasing one. From time to time the Department took up the matter of the arrears of annual leave. Complaints wen- also made by the officers themselves and by the institute, and they were not solitary complaints. Time after time warnings xvcre issued by the Department. I told many of the men myself and pointed out distinctly to them where they xx-ere drifting and the inevitable result —I told them distinctly that the Department xvas aware of the fact that malingering was going on, although it was difficult to prove, and that unless officers themselves took the steps necessary to check it by bringing under the notice of the Department cases in which malingering did occur, they would force the Department into the position of having itself to take action that xvould be detrimental to those officers xvho xx-ere acting honestly and doing the square thing. The position, however, went from bad to worse. On looking into a complaint respecting arrears of leave in one district, a matter xvhich we had been watching closely for several months, I eventually found that the leave was 1,600 days in arrears on that particular section, notxvithstanding the fact that in regard to that section I had personally time and again uttered warnings. 3. Hoxv long ago was that?—l9o7 or 1908. Well, during an inspection by the head of the Department the matter was brought under bis notice, and when he returned to Wellington he inquired what the position xvas. I told him and showed him what we were doing, and he said, " I have had complaints from this Station and that Station." I showed him xvhat had been done, and that the more men xve put on relieving the xvorse the position became. I told the General Manager that definitely and sliox\-ed him the papers. The arrears of leave on one section rose from 1,649 to 2,700 days, another section about 900 days, another 727, another 1,100, another 1000—anything from 678 up to 2,700. Then xve xx'ere faced xvith this position: xve had to put out a large number of additional relieving officers. I think, speaking from memory, we lent— and had to lav down definitely that it was a loan, othorxvise those men would have been mopped U p—nine men the first time, and subsequently, I think, six, to one district. I am, of course, speaking of about four or five years ago, and I cannot say definitely to one or two men, but I will look the matter up and state definitely xvhat tho figures were. Well, matters did not get very much better. Finally I saitl, "Very xx-ell, the only one thing to do noxv is to advise officers that every day they are off sick will be deducted from their annual leave." Then a change came over the scene, an improvement taking place. The leave, instead of getting in arrears, gradually began to get the other way. Then a regulation was gazetted, and within six months' time after

12—1. 6a.