I.—6a.

92

[b. w. mcvilly.

for five years he is granted full pay for one month and half-pay for two months; if he litis been in the service for six to ten years, lull pay for two months and half-pay for one month; if he litis been in the service over ten years he has full pay for three months, but he has got to produce such medical certificate as the Minister may direct, and the certificate has to he obtained from a medical officer approved by the Department. If the man has not recovered at the end of three months, which is the maximum time (hat he is allowed to be off sick, then he has to be examined again by an approved medical officer. If the certificate of the doctor is satisfactory he may be granted further extended leave, but he gets half-pay and third-pay for periods fixed by regulation according to his service. If absent for over three months he has to pass a medical tost before he is allowed to resume duty. If xx-e were to apply those conditions to our men we would very soon be told they were irksome, and that the Department was trying to take away some of the benefits that they had previously had. Our practice has always been to take a reasonable viexv of the matter, and if a responsible officer says he is reasonably satisfied that a subordinate is ill xve accept that. We may say, " Very well, you send him to a medical officer "; but that is only done in rare cases. As a general rule, on the assurance of the officer in charge, hacked, up by the medical certificate, the man is paid up to six months, and it is not an unreasonable thing in such circumstances to deduct any holiday leave that may be due to the man from the period of sick-leave. The Department is paying him dead time, and taking only the period of holiday leave from him in return. The Department is certainly losing all the time : there is no question about that.

Tuesday, 3ud October, 1911. Richakd William McVilly, examination continued. (No. 22.) 1. The Chairman.] Will you noxv continue your statement on behalf of the Department in reply to clauses 12 and 13?— Yes. When x\-e finished on Friday I was dealing with the practice of the Department in deducting from the sick-leave period the- annual leave due to members, and pointing out in that connection that the suggestion to insist on a medical certificate would, so far as the men are concerned, be a very great hardship owing to the conditions under xvhich many of them were working in regard to isolation from localities in which a doctor resided. I think I dealt with that question. Now, one clause of the petition under the heading of section 12 reads, " the interpretation placed on these regulations by the management of the Railxvay Department, that the Department is entitled to deduct all sick-leave from members' annual leave, irrespective of the time they are absent, and this interpretation they are strictly carrying out." Well, sir, I submit that sick-leave —even for twenty-eight days—is granted to the members of the service as a generous concession by the Department. The Department is under no obligation to grant sickleave on pay to members of the First Division. The members of the Second Division do not participate in that concession, and it opens up a very big question when you come to consider sick-pay on the broad basis for the purposes of determining whether there is any good and sufficient reason why members of the First Division should obtain sick-leave on pay for periods extending up to six months xvithout the Department having the right to make conditions under which payment is to be made. Now, I submit that the stipulation regarding the deduction of any annual leave due from the period of sick-leave is not by any means an unreasonable condition to impose; and I want to say this in that connection: if, as I take it, the contention of the institute here is that where sick-leave is granted or xvhere a member is off sick for one or two days no deduction should be made, this is the position you are going to get into : you are going to provide facilities for a section of the men taking leave for one or two days at fairly frequent intervals, and beating the Department in that xvay. Now, that is xvhat is going to happen eventually if the regulation is altered. 1 know it personally from a suggestion that was made to me by one of the officers of the Department. The question xvas put to me as to the interpretation, and I said there was interpretation. I was asked, " Well, are you going to deduct every day? " I said " Yes " ; and the reply xvas, " I did not think that xvould be done." " Then, in other words, you thought the Department knew so little about the leave business and of xvhat has been going on that it xvould allow any man xvho was not honest to beat it? Every day is going to be deducted —that is the decision of the Department." The Department claims that events have proved it was perfectly right in so deciding. Now, every day's sick-leave costs the Department so-much money, and every day your leave is extended costs the Department still more money. The cost of one day's leave to the Department is about £6,000 for all the members of the service. If the leave of the members of the First Division is extended the Department must in equity make a proportionate extension to members of the Second Division—the}' will insist on that being done. I do not mean to say that if you give members of the First Division six days extra you xvould necessarily have to give members of the Second Division six days extra, but you xvould have to give them something proportionate and equitable, and the cost would be very materially increased. The Department does not concur in the view put forxvard by the petitioners that sick-leave should be granted xvithout any deduction up to four xveeks. Regulation 55 and Regulation 56 are two entire!} 7 different regulations. Regulation 55 is made in accordance with the Act. Regulation 56 provides for something xvhich the Department is giving but xvhich it is not bound by the Act to give. It is giving it as a concession, and is acting generously in so doing. I have alreadypointed out that up to 1894 members of the Railway service who xvere off duty sick did not get paid for that time, unless they requested that the period of their sick-leave should be taken as a set-off against their annual leave. That xvas the invariable practice tit that time. Ido not think it necessary to say very much more respecting this particular matter. As I have previously pointed