HOURS OF PAY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 143, 18 June 1924, Page 17

HOURS OF PAY

IN RAILWAY SERVICE ARGUMENT BEFORE INQUIRY BOARD Further argument upon the main clauses under the consideration o£ the Railway Wages Inquiry Board was heard yesterday 'afternoon. Mr. H. H. Sterling, Railway Department representative, submitted that the maintenance and locomotive men had lost practically nothing by the changes put into effect in the : railway service after the calling -off-of the recent railway strike. The maintenance,and workshops men received overtime payment for time worked in excess/of 48 hours, and. in: addition 'received pay for the four extra hours per week. 'The traffic men were similarly'placed, and all they had lost was the payment of., overtime for work in excess of eight hours per day. Mr. K. Hunter (employees'■ assessor) : "Can you tell us the pash result'"to!'the Department of the alteration in regard, to overtime?" \ ■ ■ Mr. Sterling replied that he would endeavour to get a. Teturn showing the cost of the* eight-hour day. '.' ' ; : Mr. Justice ■ Frazer : "Have you anything to guide us as to the number of hours the men may be called upon to Work, apart from on emergency "occasions? is- 'there any general average, for instance,-, for the Main . Trunk guard?" "'•'■' ' Mr. Sterling said he had not been able to find one instance of a 16-hour shift complained of by the society's •representative. ' .-'-,■■;..; :. His Honour : "You say.it is impossible to avoid exceeding'eight hours per day. Perhaps you. can give us an average." Mr., Sterling said, that' out sof 327 .schedule runs on. the ,rosters 'only 18, runs exceeded twelve hours, and most of. those were fairly light,and intermittent. Moreover, • the work was not intensive. He promised to have a- return'prepared; upon the average number of hours per day-- •:•■■ V.; ■. ■■-. 7. .-■ ■ ' ,

up his argument upon hour's, Sir. Sterling remarked that' the .railAvaymen seemed to be under the-impres: sion that they would better their economic position, as a blass by obtaining a reduction in hours. In support ,of his contention, that, that was a wholly fallac-. ious idea, he,quoted from the "Encyclopaedia of Social Reform," edited by William Bliss. Mr. Sterling failed to' see how. the health of the men could^-be affected one iota by the return to- ■ tho longer week—a point which had been made oh behalf of the railwaymen. : FURTHER ARGUMENT. '. / Replying" to Mr. Sterling's case, -Mr. Connelly advanced further argument in support' of-the railwayman's claim for something more than a standard living wage. He objected to. the al', contention that, the standard should be the bare-amount it-cost a man and/ his family to live upoii..:-. '. -. : , ' „_ Mr. Sterling said that was a wrong, inference-'to draw "from his point,1 It was not. intended ■ that./way. .> .. j \ '.'Mr. Connelly . referred to the return submitted by Mr. Sterling, showing that while the.; general labourer ■'received a wage of Is 9d per hour,' the1 labourer in; the railway service received Is 93d.1 It' shoujd be noted, however, that the niini-. [ mum in the -railway service was the maximum, and that there was no possible chance of a member getting more than' the.minimum. •■" His Honour :."We recognise. that maa Government Department the minimum must be'the,standard."'? ■'■. ; Mr._ Connelly said 'that .generally; speaking labourers outside- the service receivedv.more'.,than the minirmun rate. Proceeding, he criticised some'of ■ the ar, guments by 'Mr. Sterling in respect .'to. Government houses, uniforms, leave ; passes, and other,' concessions. to another point, he maintained that-it was wrong. tt> expect 1 the. workers 'to give .improved results be ; fore they, were given an incentive. He did not'agree that the:incentive should be given after production had been increased..' In regard to overtime, he in-, stanced a case1 in which a'man might be worked ten hours each on Monday, Tuesday; Wednesday, Thursday, and eight on Friday. , Under the system which had recently! been changed the man would have received two hours' overtime1 pay-, ment for the first four days, and none for the'eight hours worked on Friday,despite the 'fact ;that' he had exceeded the 44 hours by,four. Now, however., under the 48-hour week, he received no daily overtime, and. by putting him off on the Saturday the Department avoided paying overtime for the week. Working the same hours .as previously,-the traffic man in effect earned 5s 4d less per week, under the.revised overtime system •!. It was all Very well to say the railways could not stand the concessions demanded by the society,' but no evidence had been adduced in support of that' contention.. .. .-•■.'•-■■ The Court adjourned at. this stage; ■■'''