ANNUAL HOLIDAYS

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 22, 20 October 1944, Page 6

ANNUAL HOLIDAYS

Railwaymen Claim Three

Weeks

SECOND DIVISION WORKERS

Claims have been made on behalf of all employees in the second division of the Railways Department for three weeks annual leave, and yesterday the Railways Industrial Tribunal heard the submissions of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in support of the claim and the department’s reply. A similar claim has been made by the Railway Tradesmens Association and the Engine-drivers, hiremen aud Cleaners’ Association. At present employees in the second division receive five days’ annual leave after the first year's service aud 10 days thereafter. Both these holidays are iu addition to the statutory holidays, as it is intended the three weeks should be. „ The tribunal consists of Mr. Stilwell, S.M., Mr. E. Casey and Dr. W. B. Sptch. Associated with them yesterday were Mr. F. W. Aickin, assessor for the department, and Mr. J. H. Terry, assessor for the A.S.R.S. Mr. L. Mcllvride presented the case for the A.S.R.S. and Mr. K, G. Reid the'ilcpartment’s reply. . , _ ■ Mr. Mcllvride said that when the Government proposed setting up the tribunal ministers informed; the association that the underlying motive was to secure, as far as practicable, uniformity of conditions in the Public Service. If that were the only reason for requesting an extension Of annual leave for members of the society it would be fully justified, because comparisons with other public servants dis'closed disparities'll! annual leave which if adjusted in favour of members of the A.S.R.S., would be to their decided advantage. For example, members of the Public Service working under the Public Service Commissioner, who had 10 years service or more, were entitled to annual leave not exceeding three weeks a year. Officers who had served less than 10 years were entitled to annual leave not exceeding two weeks a year, statutory holidays being in addition in both cases:. In the first division of the Railways Department annual leave was granted on the basis of two weeks’ annual leave a year under 10 years’ service and three weeks annual leave after 10 years’ service, plus statutory holidays. The need for three weeks’ annual leave was recognized for employees with more than 10 years service in every department of State except the Railways Department, and if it was necessary for employees with more than 10 years’ service it was equally necessary for'all employees. Me. Mcllvride quoted opinions on the necessity for adequate annual leave.

Answering Dr. Stitch, Mr. Mcllvride said the first division employees had had longer annual leave than second division employees for many years. He took it that the longer annual leave was given first division employees in compensation for not being paid for overtime as were second division employees.' Since 1942 overtime had been paid in the first division, so the reason for the disparity no longer existed. Mr. Reid said the department bad made a counter-proposal for two weeks’ annual leave to all full-time employees in respect of each leave year they completed after August 1, 1944, provision being made also for anunal leave for temporary employees engaged on a regular parttime basis, pro rata leave for employees leaving the service and holiday pay for persons engaged intermittently. In doing this, regard had been had for the Annual Holidays Act, which provided as a general rule two weeks’ annual holiday. It was pointed out. by Mr. Reid that employees in the first division were in a sedentary occupation indoors, and he said the nature of their work was one reason for the long-established practice of granting them additional leave. If the claim were granted some second division employees would get. longer annual holidays than first division employees with similar length of service. The improved annual leave scale proposed by the department would involve additional annual expenditure of £13,750. The additional annual cost of meeting the full claim would be £105.550, insofar as members of the A.S.R.S. were concerned and £123.237 for the whole of the second division, without providing for consequential adjustments in respect of the first division.

Mr. Reid added that the department did not admit that comparisons with the holidays granted outside the Railways Department were a valid argument unless all the remaining working conditions in each case were taken into consideration. He compared overlime provisions in the first division and the second division as an example of differences in conditions that would have to be taken into consideration aiid said he understood that the bulk qf the general division of the public service did not receive three weeks’ annual leave after 10 years’ service. The tribunal adjourned till this morning. when submissions on further A.S.R.S. claims will be heard.