]{. W. MrVIU.Y.

97

I.—6a.

67. Mr. Witty.] Do 1 understand that those five men were all from the Auckland District? — I think so, speaking from memory. 68. And it xvas really on account of those five men xvho were supposed to be malingering that this leave xvas stopped?—No, that brought about the final decision at the opportune moment. The matter had been under consideration before for some considerable time, and a regulation had been included earlier in the draft regulations. Only one clause of that particular regulation was gazetted at the particular time. The others were held in abeyance, and in the interval there were constant communications passing regarding this continual sick-leave, and that was the final argument of the Department. 69. Then Auckland is really the worst section of the lot with regard to sickness?— No. At that time there was very considerable trouble with the Auckland District; but there was Wanganui with 886 days. Wellington 1,066, Christchurch 1,530, Dunedin 727, Invercargill 384, Greymouth 353, live men with four months at Westporl and 27 others, short periods totalling 300 days. That is the information that was given about November, 1907. 'I hat is what was stated by the Minister in the House in reply to a question. 70. There is a vast difference in the mileage of those sections and the number of officers, and unless you have the number of officers you could not compare the figures? No, there is not such ;i great difference in the mileage or in the officers. Of course, where you have the shops there is a big difference; but I am speaking about the First Division, and the mileage is very evenly distributed. 71. On Friday, Mr. McVilly, I think you stated that in case of accidents leave is never refused. Is that correct ?— -Yes. That is, we do not deduct the accident-leave from the annual leave. 72. Well, xvould it surprise you if 1 told you that I know of a case where a man met xvith an accident, and he was told that if he went off his leave would be stopped? —The position taken up at first was that all leave would be deducted. 73. Hoxv long ago is that ! —I should think, eighteen months ago. 74. This case was less than that.'-- Well. I do not think that would be the position, because the decision was altered. The general ipiestion was put at the outset, and the staff were told that all leave would lie deducted. Later an accident occurred and this question was brought up; the Department conceded the point, and dealt with the case on its merits, and then the ruling xvas made general. If I remember aright, the matter was brought before the Minister, but at that time we had been actually granting the accident-leave, and I do not know why it was brought up. 75. As near as I can remember, this case I am referring to was twelve months ago, in my oxvn district: a man met with an accident, and he was told that if he went off it would he deducted from his leave? —I cannot say the month when the decision was come to, but tin' regulation was gazetted in May. 1910. At the outset we said it would apply to vvny case, but it was waived in tin- case of accidents, although the Department recognized there was such a thing as a man going off xvith a scratched fingei . 76. In this case it must have been early in August : it was frosty at the time, and the man slipped down from the signal-box? —A Second Division man ! 77. No, First Division?—l cannot recall that case. The original decision provided that the time should come off. because we xvanted to prevent any abuse, but every case of bona fide accident was dealt with specifically, and leave on pay was then, of course, granted. 78. This man was badly hurt for the time being?— The only case in which accident pay is not granted is where a man meets with an accident off duty —that is, the First Division men. No time is deducted from the man if he meets with an accident on the railways. 79. .1//-. •/. V. Brown.] In regard to the five men who xvere off sick, xvas there any epidemic about at the time?— There was no epidemic so far as I can remember at the time these men xvere going off. The trouble then xvas that the leave was very much in arrears, and the men xvho had leax-e due to them were naturally very much annoyed xvhen they xvere unable to get axvay. We recognized that, and did everything possible to get it up, birfc-the unfortunate part xvas that the more relieving officers xve put into the district the more the leave got behind. 80. The extraordinary"part seems to be that they all came from the one district? —Well, I xvill hare the names looked nj> and, if at all possible, get the particulars, 81. The Chairman.] You stated that the members of the Second Division do not get sickleave; but does not the Department consider that the payment of overtime is something to compensate them for not getting sick-leave? -Well, it is only a portion of the Second Division that get the overtime. 82. What portion is that?-— Drivers, guards, firemen, locomotive men, and running men. The other men, I think, get time off. but of course they have to work any hours. There is no strict forty-eight-hour limit. 83. But still, even if they get time off instead of pay for overtime worked, their overtime is recognized? —Yes, that is so. 84. It is not recognized in the first Division? —No, not in the First Division, but at the same time the First Division staff arrangements are such as to enable them to xvork reasonable hours. 85. If a District Officer satisfies himself that a man is ill do you dispense with the certificate? —Sometimes. ... 86. It is not a hard-and-fast rule that a man must supply a certificate?— No. For instance, if the District Officer said Smith xvas laid up with typhoid we xvould not ask for a certificate in that case, nor if he had broken a leg. 87. Now, a lot has been said about those five men who came to Wellington and about men elsewhere malingering, but could a man at a country station have the same opportunities for

13— T. Hα,