DUTY OF EMPLOYERS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2888, 28 September 1916, Page 7

DUTY OF EMPLOYERS

AND THE GOVERNMENT'S PRACTICE SURPRISING TREATMENT OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES (To the Editor.) '•; Sir, —Your very excellent article in. Monday's issue on the "Duty of Employers," will, I am sure, be endorsed by overy .right-thinking citizon, and proclaimed from any and every platform by every member of the Government. ' (To repeat your own words): "It would be an eternal disgrace to us if with the return of peace w6 should forget the debt wo owe to the bravo men who have risked their lives for us."

By what of the Government's policy »nd practice? That may be gathered from the copy of a letter that I have forwarded to the Minister of Railways, . and each member of the Government in thye interests of.thoso hundreds of railwaymen who havo voluntarily offered their services to their country. Your article speaks of "ft debt" we. owe to thoso who have risked their lives iu the wan Tho men. whose Tights lam advocating, do not claim recognition of "a debt," tat-they do saythat the "duty of. their employer." is to see that they get just and reasonnblb treatment, and I ask: Do you flunk it is being given them ? If thisis fo be taken as a sample of the Rational Government's policy now— what may these men expect at the con-clusion-of the war? —I am, etc., • M. J. MACK, ; .'General Secretary. The Amalgamated Society of Rnil- • way Servants. ' Wellington, September, 27, 1910. [Enclosure.] Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants of New Zealand.- '■ WdlinKton, 27th 1 Sept., 1916. Hon. W..H. Hemes, '/.'. Minister of .Railways. Sir,—l have to bring undoi; your noiico a. grievance and cruel .injustice from, which, a number 'of .railwayman are suffering in being deliberately pen ? alised by a Government Department in consequence and by reason only of their having patriotically done their duty ' in "connection with the present war. You are of course aware that if a railway man, under ordinary circumstances, suffers injury by. accident arising out of and in the courso of his employment, ho is entitled to compensation under the 'Workers' Compensation 'Act in the same way as if he were employed by a. private employer. You are fllso aware that before a person is per<manently employed in tho Railway Department he has to undergo a medical examination. If that medical examination is satisfactory and the man is taken into tie permanefty, employment of the Department, he is. not at any itime thereafter subjected to further' medical examination unless he makes an application for leave of absenco on the ground of ill-health,- or unless it fceconies necessary to ascertain his State of health' in connection with tlie .nuestion. of superannuation. Sine© the present war commenced a great number of railwaymen have en--fisted and gone to. the front. They' were informed that their positions in the Railway Service would be kept open for them until after the concluwpn of the war,' and their names, in pomt of fact, have remained on the D3_list. The .injustice of which com-, plaint is now made arises .in two classes of.cases, namely:

(1). Gases where' railwaynien have enlisted but have been re- ' jected on the ground of meditfal ■-. unfitness;-and' J " ; •■ ■.-■.-•« ••. (2) Oases where men have returned to New Zealand after having actually taken part in military operations at the front/ A typical case of the first class is that of a. man who has onlisted and *een rejected by-tho Medical ■Board on feoing into camp by Teason of 'heart -trouble, or some other complaint. In these cases it is to be remembered that tho man was thoroughly sound when die joined the service, and that his complaint has been developed while jn the employment of the Department, and by tho very reason of that employment. It is also to be remembered that, but for the man. having enlisted Rncl having beon medically examined in consequence ot his enlistment, trie Department would not—nor in some cases .would the man himself-iavo ever known that he. was suffering from any fiuch complaint. The Railway Department, then, immediately upon ascertauang the nature of tho" medical certificate, takes advantage of the statements contained in that certificate, and refuses to allow the man to contuvue in the employment of tho Department unless he signs an agreement •giving up his right, and that of. his legal representatives, to workers' compensation in lie event of his death or ot. any injury happening to him which .Jnay be due to or caused by tlie comiPlamt from whioh he is found to bo jjmfferißg (and which has arisen while fne has been- in tho service of the Government, _and by reason.of the work 'that he iias been doing for them in ithe Hallway Department), or to any recurrence or repetition thereof.' The following /is a typical form of agreeW r Z the De P artn >ent ■ insists "Whereas tho Railway Medical Officer has certified that I • ••••• am suffering from •••:;••••• ••, and therefore unsuitable for employment in the Railway Department," and you havo decided that I cannot be further employed unless I agree in writing that no compensation shall be payable to mo or my legal representatives in respect to my incapacity or death as tho result of accident while in tho deployment or the New Zealand Government Railways Department, if such incapacity or death is ,due to or caused by such' '. or to any, recurrence or repetition thereof NOW, .I..hereby AGREE in terms of section 17 of tho Workers' Compensation Act, 1908, that no compensation will bo payable to me or my legal depondants. in . respect to my incapacity or death as tho result of accidont while in the employ of the New Zealand _Governmrait Railways Department if such incapacity or death is due to or caused by the said .or fo any recurrence or repetition thereof, but this -Agreement shall not apply to an v accident not duo to The railway men who hare enlisted In the past havo done so fram patriotic motives, and from a souse of duty. Hn cases suoh as those to - which I rliavo referred, it is only by reason of 'si man impelled by those motives volunteering for active servico that the Department discovers that ho has, whilst in tho service, developed some physical complaint. The man who "does Hot enlist is f not medically examined, nnd therefore his physical complaints 'or ailments, if any, remain' unknown. It is plain, therefore, that in refusing to continue the employment of a. man who has enlisted, but has beon rejeotfecl for any such reason as I havo indicated unless, he indemnifies the Government against having to pay workers' compensation, your Department is jionalising the man for his patriotic ftion in offering his scrvicos to his ing and country. I come to the second olass of case,

and again I proposo to take a typioal instance. A man enlists, is found on medical examination to bo physically sound, goes to tho front, takes part in tho fighting, comes haok to New Zealand after having been discharged from military service, perhaps after having been in hospital, and tenders himsoli: for resumption of duty with tho Department. As I havo already said, leave was granted him when he enlisted, and ho was informed in writing that his position in the Railway Service would be kept open for him until the conclusion of the war. Upon his tendering himself for resumption of duty, tho Department insists upon his being medically examined. Upon his being' medically examined, it' is found that he is suffering from an affection of the heart which has boon caused, or brought about, during, and in consequence of, his active aervico in the defence of his country. Your Department takes advantage of this fact nud refuses to allow tho man ito resumo his former position or take up any other employment in the Department unless he signs a similar agreement to that sot out above.

At this stage I desire to emphasise tho fact that nono of tho railway men whoso cases I am representing are askbig tho. Government for either money or sympathy. All they want is to bo fairly and justly treated in the matter of employment, and it is respectfully submitted that the treatment Mat they are receiving from the Government is anything but fair or just. What would, be said of a private employer who, after one of his employees had come back from the front, refused to allow tho, man to resume his' employment unless and until ho signed such agreement as that whioh tho Government is insisting upon as a condition of re-employ-ment? I venture to say that in such circumstances the members of tho Government would be the first to condemn such- an employer, and to say that his action was unpatriotic in the extreme. Yot, the Government, which should surely show an example to employers generally of fairness and generosity to roturned soldiers, is the first employerto take the. extraordinary and unfair course"of-penalising these men in the manner I have already indicated.

- I desire to point out that even the • terms of the agreoment are in themselves unfair. The Department first of all- compels the man to admit that ; he is'unsuitable for employment in the Railway Service, and yet they are pre- ' pared to employ him on the condition that it is indemnified against liability to pay compensation for accidents. If a man is "'unsuitable for employment ' in the railway service," why does tho ; Department employ him at all?. It cannot be suggested by tho Government , that its action in demanding an indemnity • has anything to do with the question of publio safety. Ono can well understand that a railway man after rotuniing from the front —by reason of some complaint or physical infirmity developed .while oil active service—might be unfit to perform tho precise dutios that he .performed before he enlisted. No one would be so foolish as to deny that the safety of tho publio in railway • matters is the paramount consideration, and if, in the case of any particular railway man, it wore found that tho performance by him of his old duties would not be safe in the public interests owing to the possibility of his collapse by reason of some physical complaint or ailment developed while on . active service, nobody would suggest ■ that that person should be placed in the same. position as ho-held before. But surely in such a caso the Government is under a moral obligation to find some other position for such a man whore the risk to which I have referred would not exist, and to do so Without penalising him. I have advisedly dealt with this aspect of the matter, because it might be suggested by tho Government that the course that they are taking, and of which complaint is made, is taken in the interests of public safety; and because I want to point out here and now that that contention is not open. It is not open because the Railway Department has not taken up the position of refusing to re-employ the man on the groundHhat the safety of the public might be thereby endangered;,oil tliocontrary, the Department does not deny his ability to do his work, and is willing to re-employ him, but only upon the unjust and unfair condition that he agrees to waive his claim to compensation in the event of injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, if such injury arises from the infirmity or complaint which has been' developed while he was on active service. I say again that inasmuch as this physical infirmity or complaint arises during the period of active service, and while the man is doing his share in tho dofence of his country, this action of the Government is nothing less than penalising him for doing his duty to his King and country. I do. not for a moment believe that this action of the Govern--ment is one which will commend itself to public opinion. I make no apology for having written in strong terms in this letter. I have written strongly because I feel strongly, and I believo that the public of this country, will share tho views that 1 have expressed. I certainly have no doubt that those views will have the support of all those employed in the railway sefvioe and of all returned soldiers. I am Bonding a copy of this letter to each member of the Government and the Press, because the questions involved are questions of general public policy. I might add that a number of men have already been induced to sign indemnities. I believe that those who havo done so havo acted without duo appreciation of the position and without advice. I am now circularising the various secretaries of the branches of tho society, 'bringing tho matter under their notice and asking them to see that ho more members of the service sign away their rights in the manner I have indicated.—l am, etc., M. J. MACK, General Secretary. [The questions referred to in this 'otter were mentioned to the Minister of Railways last night, but Mr. Hcrries said that ho _ had not received the letter, and untilho had spocifio information from the Department as to oxactly what was being done ho would not caro to make any remark upon tho subject.!