RAILWAY SIGNALMEN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21033, 23 May 1930, Page 10

RAILWAY SIGNALMEN.

QUESTION OF HOURS WORKED. COMMENT IN SUPREME COURT. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, May 22. Comment on the hours worked by rail* way signalmen was made in the Supreme Court during the hearing of a claim for damages arising out of a collision between a bicycle ridden by the plaintiff and a motor car driven by the defendant. The plaintiff, Edward Francis Hickey, a signalman, claimed damages totalling £933 4s from the defendant, Hugh C. Grierson. •j course °f his evidence plaintiff said he was expected to reach the Newmarket railway station, where he was employed as a signalman, somewhere about 11 o clock. ■ Asked _ to give a more definite tune _ plaintiff said _ the hour, was not definitely fixed as signalmen had an arrangement among themselves. A man who was to commence his shift officially at midnight was in the habit of commencing duty shortly after 11 o'clock in order to let the retiring signalman catch a bus or tram to his home. Mr West; Was this arrangement with the permission of the Railways Departm®ut.—Plaintiff: Oh yes, I think so'. Mr West: After coming on duty early did you . then still work your eight-hour shift, commencing from midnight? Plaintiff: Yes. We get permission from the stationmaster. Mr West: It would be possible, therefore, that if you chose to come on duty four hours earlier you would he working tor 12 hours with the consent of the department? Do you think that is safe? Plaintiff: Yes. His Honor: Have you ever worked for, say, 10 hours as a signalman? Plaintiff: Yes, I have sometimes worked 12 hours when we were short-handed and there were no qualified men to relieve, in the signal box. His Honor: You say it is quite safe to do that? Plaintiff: Oh, yes; it is when we have good reliable men who can do the work and stand up to the long hours. His > Honor: I do not propose to say anything at this stage, but it seems a very extraordinary position.