HOSPITAL STAFF WAGES

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21465, 6 May 1935, Page 5

HOSPITAL STAFF WAGES

BOARD'S PROTEST TO MINISTER

REASONS TO BE SOUGHT

The North Canterbury Hospital Board decided last month that it would make a partial restoration of the cuts in salaries and wages imposed on members of its staff in 1931, but advice was subsequently received from the Department of Health that the cuts should be held up till authority was specifically given. At a special meeting of the board held on Saturday morning, a resolution protesting against the altitude of the department was passed, and it was decided to ask the department to give good and sufficient reasons for its decision. A motion directing the secretary to restore immediately the amount of the cuts at the expense of the board was lost by eight votes to seven. The debate lasted for an hour and a half, and was at times heated. Mr L. B. Evans presided in the absence of the chairman, Mr H. J. Otley. The meeting was called to consider a letter from the Director-General of Health, Dr. M. H. Watt, whicli stated that objection was not taken by the department to a board, which had closely followed the example of the Government in the matter of both thefirst and second cuts, also granting a general increase of 5 per cent, in salaries and wages—virtually restoring the second cut—and dating this increase from April 1, 1934, if not already effective. Objection would not be taken to minor adjustments of a board's salaries and wages for individual employees who were definitely underpaid in comparison with the majority of employees in their class. However, in view of the limited amount expected to be available for subsidies and to bring about an equitable allocation of subsidies, the department was not prepared to recommend the approval of estimates of boards whicu provided for the restoration of any part of the first general reduction in salaries. It was therefore desirable that each board refrain from restoring in part or whole the first general reduction until approval was specifically given. "In the meantime," said Mr Evans, "the salary increases agreed on by the board have not been paid." Mr W. J. Waller then moved: That the North Canterbury Hospital Board protests against the action of the Department of Health in holding up the partial restoration of the cut .that was made in salaries and wages in 1931, and asks that good and suflicicnt grounds should be shown why this attitude has been taken up in view of the statement that has been made from time to time by members of the Cabinet that things had improved, and it was hoped that matters were coming back to normal in the immediate juttire. At the same time, if good and sufficient reasons cannot be .snown, the board asks that the action taken shall be approved. Other Boards Protest

Mr Walter said that some time ago the department knew that several boards were to restore the cuts or pari of them; but when the action was announced, the department objected, and refused to pay any subsidy on the money thus spent. The Auckland and Otago boards had already made a protest, and he hoped that the North Canterbury board would do the same. He recommended that action should be taken through the local members of Parliament. "The Minister's reply ir, rather a weak one," said Mr Walter. "It says that the board can restore the cuts, but must find the money itself. 1 was under the impression that the nurses I were to get half of the 10 per cent, cut back. We all realise that the nurses are underpaid. If we can't see our way to restore flic cut to the whole of the staff, why not restore it to those earning less than £2OO a year. We can do without doctors, but we can't do without nurses. We have a duty to perform to our ratepayers, and of the many that I have spoken to not one is not i>: favour of the restoration." Mr W. P. Spencer, who seconded the motion, said that the board should not take the circular lying clown. "We should fight to the last ditch." he said. "I don't know why we are here. We don't seem to have much power. We should get into touch with our members of Parliament and keep the light j going." j Mr J. K. Archer said that the board I should restore as much of the cut as ! it had decided to restore. According i to the letter from the Minister, there was no power to stop the board from doing so. The City Council would be pleased to pay the little extra so that the cut should be restored. "I think that Dr. Watt has exceeded his duties," he said. "He has assumed the role of a dictator, and I protest against any paid officer trying to assume the duties of administration. This is an attempt to interfere with a Government decision." Mr Archer said he considered that the resolution failed. The board should certainly try to obtain permission, but should restore the cut in any case. The question was not whether the board should restore the cut, but, whether it should risk losing the subsidy on that portion of its expenditure. The chairman said that it appeared that the board could go on paying the money, but that the Government had the right to refuse a subsidy. It would cost the board about £2400 a year. Mr H. H. Holland said that the department should be supported in its attempt to make restoration uniform,' but that it should have notified the board of its attitude earlier. He moved as an amendment that the board sympathises with the department's attempt. Mr A. T. Smith: ThatV ail right. That won't be seconded, so I am going to speak now. Amendment Lapses

The amendment was nn seconded, and Mr Smith continue'! by saying that the old board should have the chance of criticism,-/ i.ho Minister's action, because the cuts were made in (he old board's time. 'We have been told frequently by th.; Government that we have turned the corner," said Mr Smith. "To show its confidence in this statement, the Government has sent the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance to England. To snowstill more,confidence, they have taken their wives with them. To show more confidence again, they have taken their sisters', cousins, and aunts, and to show greater confidence even than this, they have taken an army of retainers. The community is in favour of the restoration, so can't we show our confidence in our King and country by making this a jubilee gift? The cost would work out at only half a packet or cigarettes to the ratepayers." Mr J. S. Barnett suggested that Mr Walter should add to his motion an instruction to the secretary to give immediate efrect to the decision of the board, and Mr Walter agreed. "It is grossly immoral not to restore th" cut," he said. The chairman: We have decided to restore it, so why labour the ooint? Mr Barnett: I am asking that our be given effect to. The chairman: We reduced salaries by 10 per cent. Mr Archer: By 26 per cent. It is no use telling an untruth. The chairman: I am not in the habit of telling untruths. Mr Archer. Mr Archer: The reduction was £B on a cash payment of £3O. That is not 10 per cent.

The chairman: The act says one thing and the Minister another. We had to carry out the act. Mr Archer: That is untrue. The chairman: But the board did so. Mr Archer: Ah, yes. The chairman at this stage objected to being told twice by Mr Archer that he was not telling the truth, and Mr Archer agreed to withdraw the word and substitute the word "incorrect." Mrs J. A. Bean then asked Mr Archer whether he had been authorised by the City Council to commit it to an expenditure of £2400. Mr Archer: What I said was that the council, as one of the contributing bodies, would be very willing to do its part. Mrs Bean: That is not what you said. Mr Archer: Excuse me, but I am not taking any corrections from you. The council is of the opinion that it should pay its share if the board decided to restore the cut. It cannot do so unless the board decides. The Department's Authority

Sir Hugh Acland said that the addition to the original motion was contradictory, and should be kept separate. His attitude through the years when cuts had unfortunately to be made was that the authority of the , department should be recognised. He always' understood that the cuts had to be made on all the emoluments the board's servants received, and this ! naturally meant that -the £52 a year living-in allowance had to be reckoned in when cuts were imposed. "A great deal too much has been made of the hardships of nurses," said Sir Hugh. "It is never pointed out that they derive enormous benefits from their training. I would like to ask whether any other body of young women is so well paid for professional training, or has such good conditions." The addition to the motion was withdrawn, and the resolution in its original form carried. Mr Barnett then moved that in the event of a subsidy not being forthcoming the - secretary be instructed to give effect forthwith to the increase in salaries decided on on April 26. Mrs T. Green seconded the motion. Mr Archer said that the letter stated that the 5 per cent, increase should apply only to those employees who had received the second cut. The board It d not made the second, cut, so it )oo!;od as though North Canterbury would be ruled out of the .subsidy. It should be made clear, however, that living-in allowances were reckoned in the salaries, against the wish of the Minister. Mr Smith: The board is saying to the Government, "God bless you" on the one hand, and "Go to the devil" on the other. Sir Hugh Acland said that there was no urgency for the motion. "In a few days' time we will all be in a better frame of mind to discuss it," he said. "No complaints have come from the nurses themselves," said Mr Holland. "The whole thing is simply political propaganda." Mr R. A. Mould opposed any Increase because, he said, it would mean a further burden on the already overtaxed farmer. Mr Walter said that the board had promised the nurses a restoration, and it. should honour that promise. If the matter were approached in the right way the subsidy might be obtained. Mr Barnett's motion was lost by eight votes to seven.