BANK OFFICIALS’ CLAIMS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25735, 22 February 1949, Page 7

BANK OFFICIALS’ CLAIMS

FORMER EMPLOYEE’S EVIDENCE ALLEGED EVASION OF OVERTIME PAY (P.A.) WELLINGTON, Feb. 21. Allegations that the Union Bank had tried to avoid the payment of overtime as a matter of policy, were made by a witness to-day, when the hearing of award claims by New Zealand bank officials was continued in the Arbitration Court. Mr Justice Tyndall presided. Cecil Keatley Hamilton Donnell, a former first teller in the Wellington branch of the Union Bank of Australia, Ltd., who resigned in 1943, said in evidence that he was required to work at high pressure after he joined the bank in 1921. The bank tried to avoid the payment of overtime. two main methods being used. “I know that when a man would record his time, on many occasions the times that he recorded in the attendance book were altered to lesser times by controlling officers. after the employee had signed the book,” the witness said. His Honour: Just a minute, until I get the first thing right. According to you, there is a school for forgery conducted in the Union Bank. Do you- suggest that responsible officers would alter things? The witness: Yes. His Honour: No wonder we have a lot of forgers around the country if that is correct—and I find it hard to believe. However, you are on oath. The witness said that another practice was that if the man in charge of the time cards discovered, a few days before the end of an 80-hour fortnight, that a man worked in excess of his time, the controlling officer would say: "You are .two or three hours in excess of time. I want you to knock off at 3 p.m. to-day, or take an extra hour off for the next few days, so that you will not be in excess of your hours at the end of the week.” Payment of Losses On occasions, the witness added, a man on a particular class of work in the bank would not be able to stop work at 3 p.m. and go home, and leave things to somebody else. He had known men to have up to three hours and a half for lunch. The witness also described how bank officers were obliged to make good any losses they incurred, and said that he had known of losses that had been paid ranging up to £BOO. His Honour: Do you know of any gains that occurred in the bank? The witness: If a bank officer takes home samples he does not last very long. Surpluses in a teller’s cash are put in a surplus cash account. The witness added that although he had paid about £390 ip contributions to the pension fund, that amount was not refunded on his resignation. To the advocate for the union (Mr C. A. R. Brunt), the witness said that there was a fear complex among bank employees. His Honour: What were they afraid of? The witness: They were frightened of earning the displeasure of controlling officers. That would result in a reduction in salary, non-promotion, or various indignities. I have even had the experience of being warned by a controlling officer that it would be better for my banking career if I dropped my “Bolshie” attitude. His Honour: So you were a “Bolshie” were you? The witness; Oh, no, sir. I was standing - up for the right of myself and my fellows in this. Witness Cross-examined Cross-examined by the advocate for the New Zealand Associated Banks (Mr W. J. Mountjoy), the witness said he had left the bank because he was dissatisfied with the conditions of employment. He had always considered that employees in a bank were not prepared, because of a fear complex, to come out and state what they felt themselves. "I have always, since leaving the bank, endeavoured -to improve conditions for the present employees,” said the witness. “I consider that there are many employees in the Union Bank who will thank me for what I am doing to-day.” To Mr Mountjoy, the witness admitted that he had no record of the hours he had worked in overtime, and could not give accurate details now. He had no access to the bank’s present records, and had no knowledge of present-day conditions. He could not recall a specific occasion on which his own hours were altered, but could name a dozen men who had had it occur to them. When the witness named several employees, Mr Brunt asked for an assurance that no action would be taken against them. Later, Mr Brunt asked the Court’s permission to present written statements by junior officers about alterations to entries in the attendance book.