SUPERANNUATION CUT ?

Grey River Argus, 14 December 1938, Page 3

SUPERANNUATION CUT ?

Legal Test Case [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, December 12 Whether the reductions in f£ecte( j made during .^ e f superannuation for the computation of sup e j the . s: that 11 pt three years of the salary age X received. George Potticary % ct n a / retired railway servant, of Holland, a retirea i ' t he Gov . Petone P r °^ d Superannuation ernment Ray y chratt appeared Fund Board. » F. C Spratt for the Pj ai nt ’ Corn i S h K.C.) and Gel L er v/ M Mr F W. Aitkin, for the with him Mr r._ o reserved, defendant, of claim, Plaintiff, in n s thp railways ser1. The saiaiy paj force was classification _ t Qf pro . 6 J per * a <- I qqi and was ac,h%F„‘iOS and "n April 1. [g" reduced by a further 10 per 7 %7R7 Ils under section 7of MoSSendnereMl—salary pavable was then £3BO, but under the statutory provsions had hppn reduced to £307 16s. . All salaries reduced were .®" c S 1934 1V restored by the Finance Acts of 1934, 1935 and 1936. Jhe Payable t S nt t"y TlmS. Plain! lift claimed to be entitled to supers annuation allowance as from> July 1937 at the rate of £253 7s aye , Of his retirement. The board had paid him £233 2s a year, and denied h right to receive allowance at a y higher rate. A declaration was sought that plaintiff was entit ed to £253 7s n tear-payable monthly, from July, 1937 that the board had withheld. Mr Spratt said that as the factsi in the pleadings were admitted, neither side proposed to call evldenc ® - t e whole case depended upon the true construction of the statute man was in receipt, say, of £360 a year at the time of his retirement, and had served the full 40 years, he was entitled to two-thirds of that sum as superannuation. That was the genera principle; but there was a proviso that Ff a man had served in a grade lower than that he held at the time of his retirement within three years before his retirement; his pay was averaged for the three years. During the three years immediately before his retirement, plaintiff, along with every member of the railway service, had had restored the “cuts” made during the depression. He maintained he had served in one grade during the last three years of his service, but tne board contended that his increments in salaiJT were equivalent to promotion from one grade to another. The Solicitor-General: We do not put it quite that way. Mr Spratt: That is the way it appears to me on the pleadings “Were there not cases similar to this before the cuts,” inquired his 'Honour during the hearing of legal argument. „ Mr Aitkin replied that from 1931 to the present time the averaging principle had been adopted as. a basis of computation. His Honour: Before that? Mr Spratt: Before that, what we contend for operated. This has been a bone of contention between various organisations of men since 1931. Mr Aitkin: There was a peculiar system in operation before 1931. If a member or officer received an increase in pay and changed his title he was averaged; but if he did not change his title, he was not averaged. His Honour: In this case, the title was not altered in the last three years of service. Mr Aitkin: It was considered in 1931 that the previous practice was wrong. His Honour: How long did it operate?

Mr Aitkin: I should say for about 11 years. Mr Spratt said that a note handed to him by a responsible person stated that the practice had operated for 30 years. His Honour: It appears then, that before 1931 —and presumably the practice obtained for 30 years—in a case like the present, where the super-] annuitant had held the position with the same title for the last three years of service, but with varying rates of pay, he received superannuation on the basis of his last year’s pay. Mr Spratt said the question was, did the restoration of cuts imply within section 116 that the person to whom the cut had been restored was thereby deemed to have served in a lower grade when he was receiving the lesser salary? “T. submit,” added Mr Spratt, “that that state of affairs was not in the contemplation of the framers of the Act, and that it does not come within the plain words of the section in dispute,” Decision was reserved.