RAILWAY OFFICERS’ INSTITUTE

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 October 1936, Page 9

RAILWAY OFFICERS’ INSTITUTE

REPLY TO GENERAL MANAGER

[FEB PBEBB ASSOCIATION,]

WELLINGTON, October 6

The Dominion executive of the New Zealand Railway Officers’ Institute has issued a statement taking strong exception to the remarks of the general manager of railways (Mr G. 11. Mackley) at Auckland on Saturday evening about tho application of the 40-houi week to Division 1 of the service. The institute, which represents the official and clerical staffs, asserts that there is serious dissatisfaction amongst its members because of the differential treatment accorded them during the transitory period after the introduction of the 40-hour week principle.

It is claimed that a period of time must elapse before full effect can be given to the 40-hour week because ol substantial adjustments in staffing arrangements being necessary and also because of the approach of the busy Christmas and New Year period. The executive says that the general manager failed to fulfil his promise to include representatives of the institute in tho conference which took place between the management and other staff organisations to discuss the application of the 40-hour week. “Division 1 members do not receive payment for time worked in excess ot 40 hours a week, although payment is granted to clerical staffs of othei oranches of tho public service.” says tho statement. ‘‘The- general manager has persisted in his contention that payment to one section of employees and no payment to others does /io! constitute inequality of treatment. The members of the workshops, locomotive, traffic, and other branches of the setvice (known as Division 2) are now laid a full week’s wages for 4U hours work, and for the time worked be tween 40 and 48 hours a week such members aro paid additional wages at their ordinary hourly rate of pay, which varies from 10 to 20 per cent, more than the rates existing before September 1 last. On the completion of 48 hours a week, Division 2 members aro paid at one and a quai tci times the new hourly rate. The general manager’s reference to service conditions applicable to Division 1 members, such as annual leave, sick pay etc., is considered to bo misleading,’ in that such conditions were in operation years before the 40-hotu week was contemplated. The various conditions applying to all sections of the railway service have, theicfoie, no bearing whatever on the differential treatment accorded to Division 1 members in tho operation of the 40-hour week. , . _ . "Respecting regrading, the institute affirms that the Railway Board degraded many positions during the depression and abolished others, but the general manager is now most reluctant to restore positions and gradings commensurate with the increased duties and responsibilities now prevailing. Other branches of the public service have received much more reasonable treatment.

“Regarding goodwill promotions, it is interesting to note that the general manager is still undecided, although the classification list was due on April 1, and has not yet been published. Other branches of the public service have already benefited substantially from the goodwill promotion. “Tho arrangements outlined in the foregoing as applying to Division 2 members arc to remain in operation until the 40-hour week is an accomplished fact, and it is in this respect that the institute claims its members aro entitled to equal treatment,’’ concludes the statement.