JOINT CLAIMS

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 62, 11 September 1945, Page 9

JOINT CLAIMS

RAILWAY SOCIETIES

SICK AND ACCIDENT PAY

All four railway service organisations joined in presenting a claim to the Railways Industrial Tribunal yesterday afternoon for full pay for all employees when off duty through sickness or through accident, as defined in the Workers' Compensation Act.

The case was put forward by Mr. T. F. Gebbie, secretary of the Railways Tradesmen's Association, who said that a considerable difference in favour of first division employees existed in respect of sick and accident pay between the two divisions. While they would make comparisons between the two sets of conditions, they did not wish to convey the impression that they considered the provision made for first division employees were adequate, but were of opinion that conditions in both divisions required improvement. The four railway societies contended that industry should accept the responsibility for payment of full wages when employees were laid aside from work through illness. Mr. Gebbie drew attention to the types of ailment that could be ascribed to the nature of railwaymen's work and to the provision made on the Australian railways for sick and accident pay. The only sick pay received by a second division man in New Zealand was from the Railways Sick Benefit Fund from which, for a contribution of £1 12s 6d a year, he received £2 5s a week for the first six months and £1 2s 6d per week for a further six months of sickness. It was contended that there was no reason why any distinction should be made between clerical and administrative workers on the one hand and manual workers on the other. Conditions in the first division could also be improved by meeting the claim in full.

INDUSTRY'S RESPONSIBILITY

In respect of full pay for accidents, Mr. Gebbie contended that the moral responsibility upon industry to provide for its injured workers could not be disputed. It had, in fact, been accepted not only as a moral responsibility, but asa legal one in New Zealand since the enactment of the Workers' Compensation Act in its original form and with its amendments, but there remained a gap between the moral responsibility and the legal responsibility which it was the object of the present claim to close. It was suggested that the cost of meeting the claim should be spread amongst the users of the railways rather than have the burden imposed as a penalty upon those who.were injured in the performance of their duties. The service organisations would co-operate to the full to see that there would be no abuse of the position if the just and humane principle they advocated were introduced into New Zealand. On behalf of the Department, Mr. K. G. Reid said that the Tribunal had disallowed the claim at its sittings in 1944. The present claim placed no restriction on the period of absence for which full payment was claimed, and the Department knew of no industrial undertaking, governmental or private, which made provision for the payment of sick and accident leave in terms of the claim. It was contended, moreover, that no sick benefit fund, no friendly society or provident fund, and no insurance scheme would undertake such a liability.

HEAVY ESTIMATED COST.

As to accident pay, the Department was bound by the Workers' Compensation Act and all the benefits payable under that Act were received by its employees. The claim was opposed on account of the heavy additional expenditure, estimated at over £200,000 a year, which would be incurred. . A further objection was ,that provision already existed for certain payments to employees while off duty through sickness or accident, either by continuation of wages or salary during certain periods of sickness or through the agency of the Railways Sick Benefit Fund or workers' compensation payments (plus cost-of-living allowance paid by the Department), and the Social Security Fund, from which substantially increased benefits were forecast by the Government. "The present trend in regard to payment for sick leave seems to be a liberalising of the social security benefits provided by taxation from the community, rather than an extension of sick leave schemes paid for wholly by the industry," Mr. Reid added. "The Tribunal reserved it decision.