I.—6a.

122

[c. w. mcvilly.

have quoted those three instances that the privileges are to compensate?— Well, if you want to go into the question of salary I am prepared to discuss that 13. But you used it as an argument when the question of comparison of the salaries in the Postal Department xvas being discussed? —The Department has never contended anything else but that the leave and other privileges that are granted to members of the First Division xx-ere given as a set-off for any and all the services the First Division might perform in connection xvith the time worked during holidays and other occasions, and all that sort of thing. 14. When you xvere under examination as to the difference between the scale of salaries in the Post and Telegraph Department and the Railways you said the Railway men received privileges xvhich the Post and Telegraph men do not receive, so that you set it against the salaries on that occasion?— That statement of mine is perfectly correct. The Railway men receive £129,000 of privileges that the Postal men do not receive, and the Postal men xvould be very glad to get them. 15. Then the Railway man's privilege has got to stand duty for his difference in salary, his difference in leave, and also his overtime? —While on this question of salary it is just as well to now disabuse the minds of you people about the difference in salaries. The difference is in favour of the Railxvay staff and not as you are putting it in favour of the Postal officers. 16. I was speaking of the comparisons on the schedules? —I am coming to that. The difference in salaries is not in favour of the Postal Department, but in favour of the Railxvay Department. For clerks the Railway average is higher, irrespective of the privileges.* 17. Well, we are open to be convinced on that point?— Well, later on I xvill discuss that aspect of the question. 18. You also stated that when normal conditions prevailed the officers in charge for the time being will subsequently arrange to compensate the men for additional services by giving them time off? —Yes; and I will say this : that xvhen I xvas a relieving officer I gave a man time off xvhen he worked overtime as I considered fit, and I do not knoxv of any instance in xvhich any officer has ever questioned the Stationmaster's right to do that sort of thing. 19. Then- is no regulation to that effect as regards the First Division?— You do not make a regulation to deal xvith every little matter that the Stationmaster ought to deal xvith. 20. But has the Department issued any instructions to the officers to continue that practice or carry it out? —The Department has not issued instructions forbidding a practice that was in operation years ago, and which, as far as I know, is being continued, subject to reasonable conditions and arrangements. 21. Well, in regard to the officers working ten or txvelve hours a day, such as I mentioned in the statement I put in, xx-ould you suggest that the men could possibly be alloxved time off or should be alloxved time off for the extra xx-ork performed ?—What I should do if I xvere in charge of a station and had txvo clerks would be to so arrange the xx'ork that those men could get some time off, and I xvould not consult anybody about it. I xvould do xvhat I considered to be right, and take the responsibility. 22. You xvould be in favour of providing a man xvith sufficient staff to do this work?—No one can convince me that any of our staff are overworked. 23. You, of course, have to remember that it is a long number of years since you were in charge of a station ?—lt is a few years, but the conditions in that respect have not altered materially. 24. You are not conversant with the conditions now the same as before? —Yes, I am. I could go and take charge of the largest station connected xvith our system to-day, and stand on my head and do it. 25. Well, that is an acrobatic achievement that I am not capable of? —Still it can be done, you know 26. I believe myself you have the pluck to do it? —Yes, and the ability too. 27. What I wish you to understand I am getting at is that the conditions have altered considerably since?—l am aware,the conditions have altered to some extent, but do not forget this: that coincident xvith the altered conditions the position of the staff has altered —that is, all the staffs have been increased xvhere necessary, and the staff at all those places is sufficient to enable the work to be done within reasonable hours if the officer in charge likes to make reasonable arrangements. I touched on that earlier in the proceedings, and quoted a case in xvhich the officer in charge seemed to think his xvhole duty xvas to write one or two letters and keep the cashbook. We promptly pulled one man out of that station, and have not had any complaint since, and the work has gone on till right. 28. Mr. Ross.] You attribute the long hours xvorked in those stations to lack of control and to mismanagement I—l1 —I have not attributed that at all, Mr. Ross. 29. What is your contention? —My contention is that all that the Stationmaster has to do is to make his arrangements. If the hours are long the man has sufficient staff, and it devolves on the man in charge or in immediate control of the men to make suitable arrangements. 30. -And you admit that in regard to the evidence given before the Committee to-day wherein it is proved that certain officers work sixty, seventy, and seventy-two hours a week, that proper arrangements are not being made, otherwise the hours xvould not be excessive? —I have not said anything of the kind, and 1 do not regard a bare assertion as proof. I have simply said it is possible to make other arrangements, and the Stationmaster should do that. 31. You suggest that better arrangements could be made? —I said that the Stationmaster should make the arrangements. 32. Better arrangements? —I said he should make the necessary arrangements.

* See Exhibits Nos. 10 and 12.