THE RAILWAY SERVICE

Northern Advocate, 11 February 1920, Page 4

THE RAILWAY SERVICE

'HAD BUSINESS."

Mh' HAMPTON' 'S PONTKNTIOXS.

Iv the concluding stage of the railway inquiry, held before Mr Justice Stringer, the views of the A.tt.R.S. were outlined by Mr Hampton, who said that when a man had completed ■forty yoais of .service and had reached sixty years of age, aud was entitled to superannuation of at least £250 per annum, he should r-nire. Viewing the question from tho standpoint of principle and its effect on the general efficiency of the service, he said it appeared to the society that Parliament, had intended that railway servants should ictire on completion of forty years of service, because it had made provision on completion of such a period that superannuation could not be improved. The unfortunate part of the situation was this, that a man was entitled to retire on two-thirds of his .salary after attaining forty years' service, but. if his salary was raised after that time he was still entitled to draw two-thirds of the new salary. Such a contingency was on incentive to a man to remain in the service after completing forty years' <,f service. If a man could do that it was bad business. In all, Mr Hampton said he could quote the ease of seventeen men of over forty years' service whose salaries represented an increase of £1380 on what had previously been drawn, and an additional burden of £020 every year on the Superannuation Fund. Some years after the original Act had been passed Parliament saw that pensions of £800 and £1000 wore really salaries, and had amended the Act, limiting the amount of superannuation any particular individual could draw to a maximum of £300 a year. This would not eorne into effect for some time, as Parliament could not bnak a contract entered into with the existing contributors. The Act was passed about eight years ago in a consolidating measure, and would take about thirty years to work out. "HANGERS-ON." His Honour interjected that with £300 as the maximum pension there would be a still greater inducement to hang on. Mr Hampton eo.-itinued that if a man lad been forty years in the service and could draw a pension of £300, he ought not to be " down on his uppers'' at that time of life. Parliament had sorely never anticipated that men would hang on after they were due to retire. The proposal was meant to enhance the efficiency of the service by a fair way to get rid of the older men, who tended to get into a rut.

Mr Hampton went on to quote instances of officers in the service who retained their positions, though entitled by length of service to retire. The Chief Traffic Manager, with a salary of £1250, had forty-four years and seven months service, according to tho L>3 of last April, and he was entitled to Tetire at any time on £733 6s Bd, two thirds of £1100. Assuming that he paid £75 per year superannuation contribution, one could see he was holding the position really for about £300 a year. A man in such n position could hardly feel the same responsibility as men in less independent positions, and the tendency was to "mark time." Similarly, the Assistant Traffic Manager, with forty-six years ten months' service, and a salary of £800 per annum, could retire on £533 6s Bd. This meant that he was practically filling an £800 position for £210 13s 4d. In another case quot3 an official entitled to retire on £466 13s 4d was holding a £700 job for £184 (is Sd.

Continuing, Mr Hampton said that the same thing obtained in the districts. As a macter of fact, in every district but one the traffic manager had completed forty years of service, and was eligible for retirement. The tendency was for men with really nothing to lose to take up an ii responsible attitude. NOT A ONE MAN'S JOB. They had as General Manager an earnest, capable, hard-working man, and he should have around him brainy and r.ctive men ready to cany on the business of tho Department. No one man, tow ever capable, could carry the whole burden on his back, and that appeared to be the position to-day.

In striking contrast the Department set the age limit for certain positions at. fifty, bridge inspectors and foremen of works, for instance. If such a principle prevailed in subordinate positions, why should it not obtain in the higher sphere? As a result of the pTesent state of .ifairs it was impossible for a man to calculate his prospects cf promotion, and the Department might lose many a man deserving of rvery encouragement in consequence. A man might find himself within five years of his retirement before he got a chance, owing to this system of hangi»g on. This mean a blow against smbition. Mr Hampton went on to say that it was veery awkward for the General Manager to nave to discriminate. There might be men he desired to retain for their .;fficiency after they vere due to retire, but there were others whom the Department did not want. He believed that some of the men who were haHging on had been given a pretty plain hint that they were not wanted, but it had to be borne in mind that hints in .some eases did not suffice. To his mind, the GeHcral Manager would hesitate to tell a man he must actually retire, because the principal applied all round might bo injurious in some cases. The society's- view was that there should be n general rule, so that men woidd know where they were. Passing on, Mr Hampton said that they could not accept the opinion expressed by Mr Henries that it. was not the business of tin A.S.R.S. The men believed that, if "head were not right the body would be sine to suffer ' and they had put forward their views in the honest, belief that they would tend to promote the efficiency of the service. MR MACDONALD IN REPLY. Replying to Mr Hampton, Mr MacDonald, Assistant-General Manager, emphasised that there was no unanimity on the point at issue amongst the societies representing the members of the service. The Officers' Institute did not agree to the age limit suggested by the A.5.8.5., a»d put forward 40

years of service and 00 years of age, instead ul' -to years of service or 00 veins of age. The remaining division hud nol expressed its voice on the matter. Mr MacDO'iald went on to point (in that the proposal that retirement should be made compulsory of memI cis who had forty years of service or who had attained 00 years of age and who, in either case, were entitled to a pension on such retirement or not less than £2"><i per annum, affected only those in the upper grades of the First Division. It did not apply to the other members of the service, as their retiring allowance would in no case amount to £2">o per annum. Members of the First Division commenced their service with the Department as cadets between 1.1 and 17 years of age. They would, therefore, be compelled to retire as early as 55 years of age, and not later than 57 years. Between theso ages the average man had all his mental vigour still unimpaired. In fact, in the professions which essentially called for a high degree of intellectual powers men did not as a rule reach the zenith of their career until at least 55 years of age, and in some cases later in life still. SINS OF CLASSIFICATION. The position as to present contributors was that the amendment proposed ■ could not be mad-?, as constituting tho variation of the contract which the Legislature, When sanctioning the making of the contract, declared should not be varied. As !o present and future contributors, the change was not justified, as involving economic loss to both the country and the contributor r.nd a heavy burden on the superannuation fund, while at the same time conferring no substantial compensating ad\antage on the staff.

Concluding, Mr MaeDonald said that the Department :.••cognised that every .•assistance should be given to younger men to rise. The fact that the tendency of the age in the service was to rise was due to the system of classficntion. The sins charged by Mr Hampton on the Department were duo to the system of classification, not to superannuation. The classification had a benumbing effect, and tended to deprive the men of incentive. This system had been in existence in the Railway Department longer than in any other State Department.

His Honour, in remarking that the inquiry was now at an end, said he had been very glad to hear the views expressed by both sides. The problem was fraught with great difficulties, and he could quite see that classification was the "lion in the path," but what could be substituted fir classification was a still more difficult thing. However, he would g'.ve the question his best consideration