BANK’S POLICY TO PREVENT PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME WORK

Grey River Argus, 22 February 1949, Page 3

BANK’S POLICY TO PREVENT PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME WORK

Ex-Official’s Evidence on Award Claim WELLINGTON, Feb. 21. The hearing of the claim for an award by New Zealand bank officials was continued in the Arbitration Court to-day before Mr Justice Tyndall. Cecil Katley Hamilton Donnell, formerly first teller in the Wellington branch of the Union Bank of Australia, Ltd., who resigned in 1943 said in evidence that he was required to work at high pressure since .he joined the Union Bank in 1921. The bank tried to avoid the payment of overtime as a matter of policy. He said that two main methods were being used. “I know that when a man would record his time on many occasions the times that he recorded in the attendance book were altered to lesser times by the controlling officers after the employee had signed the book,” witness said. His Honour: Just a minute, till I get the first thing right. According to you there is a school for forgery conducted in the Union Bank. Do you suggest that responsible officers wou’d alter things? Vv itness: Yes. His Honour: No wonder we have a lot of forgers around the country if that is correct —and I find it hard to believe. However, you are on oath. Witness said another practice was that, if the man in charge of the time cards d'scovered a few days before the end of the SO-hour fortnight that a man had worked in excess of his time, the controlling officer would come along and say, “You are two or three hours in excess of the time. I want you to knock off at 3 p.m. to-day or take an extra hour off for the next few days so that you are not being in excess of your hours at the end of the week.” SOME EASY JOBS On occasions, witness added, a man on a particular class of work in the bank would not to able to cease work at 3 p.m. and would go home and leave things to somebody else. He had even known men to have up to three hours and a half for the lunch-hour. Witness described how bank officers were obliged to make good any loss they incurred and said he had known of losses that had been oaid running from single figures to £BOO. His Honour; Do you know of any gains that occurred in the bank? Witness: If a bank officer takes homes surpluses he does not last very long. Surpluses in a teller’s cash arcput into a surplus cash account. LOST SUPERANNUATION Witness added that although he had paid about £390 in contributions to the pension fund, that amount was not refunded on his resignation. T o the advocate for the union, witness said there was a fear complex among bank employees. His Honour: What were they afraid of? TALK OF “BOLSHIE” Witness: They were frightened of earning the displeasure of the controlling officer that would result m a reduction of salary, non.-promotion or various indignities that would force them into the position. I have even had the experience of being warned by a controlling officer that it would ' be better for my bankingcareer if I dropped my Bolshie attitude. His Honour: So you were a Bolshie, were you? Witness: Oh, no, Sir, I was standing up lor th.e right of myself and my fellows in this. CROSS-EXAMINATION Cross-examined by the advocate for the New Zealand Associated Banks (Mr W. J. Mountjoy), the witness said that he had left the Union Bank because he was dissatisfied with the conditions of employment. He had always considered that employees in the bank were not prepared, because of their fear complex, to come out and to state what they fell themselves.

“I have always, since leaving the bank, endeavoured to improve the conditions for the.present employees,” said witness. “I consider there are many employees in the Union Bank who will thank me for what I am doffig to-day.” To Mr Mountjoy, witness admitted that he had no record of the hours of overtime that he had worked, and that he could not give accurate details now. He had no access to the bank’s present records, and he had no knowledge of the present day conditions, after his six years of absence. He could not recall a specific occasion on which his own hours were altered, but he could name a dozen men who had had it happen to them. SUPPORT FOR WITNESS’S STATEMENTS. When the witness named several employees, Mr Brunt (advocate for the union) asked for an assurance that no action would be taken against them. Later, Mr Brunt asked the court’s permission to present written statements by junior officers about alterations to' entries in the attendancebook.