RAILWAY WORKERS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 144, 19 June 1924, Page 9

RAILWAY WORKERS

DISPUTE WITH DEPARTMENT ARGUMENT BEFORE INQUIRY BOARD. Further points in dispute between the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants and the' Railway Department were argued before the Ii H uiry Board yesterday. • Dealing with the liability of railway workers to accident, Mr. Connelly, advocate for the Amalgamated Society <f Railway Servants, said that in 1916 the amount paid out in satisfaction of compensation claims was £12,565; in 1917 £15,000; in 1918, £15,877. in 1919;' £13,000; in 1920, £12,033; in 1921 £18,638;. in 1922, £26,292; and in 1923, £25,648.. Mr. Sterling (departmental, advocate) pointed out that wages also had increased. Mr. Connelly: "Yes-; until four weeks ago they were only 48 per cent, above the pre-war basic rate, whereas the' actual. increase in the amount of compensation was 100 per cent." The numerical strength of the staff in 1916 was 14,614, as against £15,728 in 1923. While the increase in the staff was 7.50 per cent., compensation payments increased by 100 per cent. The percentage of accidents-in 1916 was 6.20, but compared with the staff in 1923 it was 9.13 Touching again upon overtime, whichhad been debated at previous sittings. Mr. Connelly said that with few exceptions the railways in Australia paid time and a half.after eight hours and double time after twelve hours; all tßings considered comparatively, ho thought the Now Zealand railwaymen had an equal claim. Mr. Sterling, dealing with Wages, contended that the best evidence of what a man could live upon was what he did live on. . . THE MINOR CLAIMS.

This concluded the argument on the principal claims, and it was decided to consider each of the remaining clauses —over sixty in number—separately. The first was the demand that members of the Second Division should receive pay dockets with each pay, indicating how the wages had been computed. Mr. Connelly said this had been tentatively agreed upon in negotiations with the Minister, but _ certain circumstances' had militated against its being put into effect. Mr. .Sterling contended' that the system served no really useful purpose. ■ Moreover, it would mean an enormous amount of clerical work in a restricted period. ': In support of the claim that all way and works men be paid travelling time to and from work at week-ends, Mr. Connelly said the men Were away from home for 50 to 100 per cent, of their time, and had not the privileap of getting home st the week-ends_ without loss of pay. Mr. Sterling met this contention by pointing out that the men ■ were- given time to go to the job at the commencement and to return on its completion. It would cost the Department £14,300 per annum to give effect to the claim. The claim that leading hands in each yard be paid 6d per day extra, said Mr. Connelly, was an old-standing grievance. These men had -to organise the work, of the surfacemen, and had to have special knowledge. , Mr. Sterling ■ said the men were not recognised as leading hands. . The ganger was in the same position. Other claims considered were in regard to line erectors, tablet porters, and surfacemen. • . The board adjourned at this stage till to-day. .