HOLIDAY LEAVE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 59, Issue 4220, 6 December 1939, Page 6

HOLIDAY LEAVE

BOROUGH COUNCIL DISCUSSION. “SOME BIAS EVIDENT.” A statement that there was evid ■ ence of bias in the deliberations of the Council was made by the Mayor (Mr G. Spinley) at the meeting of the Borough Council on Monday evening, when consideration was being given to a recommendation affecting the works foreman’s holiday leave. The works and finance committees recommended that the works foreman’s holiday leave commence on 20th December, and that he be paid 1 four weeks’ wages in lieu of accumu* lated holidays. To a question, Cr J. C. Montefiore said Mr Close had ten weeks’ holidav due. Cr A. C. Brookes said it seemed to him that only two weeks’ holiday were due. Cr Montefiore said Mi- Close had told him his accumulated arrears of holidays were ten weeks. He desired four weeks now and another four weeks at a later dato. _ Cr Brookes said there was a practice in Government departments that if a servant did not take his annual holidays in any one year he must forego them. The practice of accumulating holiday leave should cease—it was wrong in principle. Cr L. S. Armstrong supported this view. Cr Montefiore contended that the holiday was due to Mir Close, and he should be given it. The Mayor said the Borough Council was not a Government department. He knew of Government officials who had obtained long leave to travel overseas. The works foreman had worked hard for the borough, and he (the. Mayor) felt that the holiday leave was well earned. It was necessary, at holiday time, for some responsible servant to be available in case of emergency, and for several years Mr Close had remained in Te Awamutu.

Cr Wl. J. North said he could remember only one occasion in eight years that the works foreman had been away from the town at holiday time.

Cr Armstrong said he was in favour of the foreman beir- **iven four weeks’ holiday with two weeks’ pay. The Mayor said the foreman was a permanent employee, and could not be dismissed for a fortnight, and reengaged. That was the effect of Cr Armstrong’s suggestion. He thought the leave recommended by the committees should be granted, and a new arrangement made, if desired, concerning future holiday leave. Cr Armstrong said the question of accumulated leave sholud be referred to the legal and finance committee. Cr Brookes moved that in future officers of the Council must take their holiday leave in the year in which it became due, failing which such holiday leave would become forfeited, unless by direction of the full Council. The officer concerned was allowed to carry leave over to the ensuing year. Cr Armstrong seconded.

Cr North commented that the town clerk had had no real holiday for many years.

The motion was put and carried without dissent. A little later the subject recurred, and Cr Armstrong said he felt that the latest recommendation was merely another way of giving the foreman a bonus. He recalled that some time Ego a proposal to grant the foreman a £5O bonus was defeated by the Council. It seemed to him that the latest move was merely a subterfuge to gain the point. Cr J. Sterritt said the legal and finance committee had had the matter under consideration. It was assured that ten weeks’ holiday leave was due, and its recommendation was that four weeks’ pay and two weeks’ holiday be given the foreman. Cr C. J. Spiers said he understood there were three years* holidays due to Mr Close. Cr Brookes moved that the whole position be investigated by the finance committee.

Cr Armstrong seconded. Cr Montefiore moved an amendment to the effect that if the treasurer, on investigation, found the holiday leave was due to the foreman, the back pay be paid without delay. The foreman had planned a holiday at Christmas time, and the Council would not meet again until the new year. Tfie Mayor said it was evident that there was some bias in the discussion, but what was wanted was clear, calm judgment. If the money or holiday was due the objection would be honoured. Mr Close had done very good service over a term of years, and councillors should be fair. Cr Brookes said Cr Montefiore had surprised the Council by declaring that there was ten weeks’ holiday due. Nobody else had any knowledge of that. Perhaps that point should be explained. Cr Spiers said the foreman had asked the finance committee for four weeks’ holiday on full pay in satisfaction of all his holidays due. Cr Brookes: That is very different from the statement of Cr Montefiore! Who is right ? That is why I want an investigation. Then a “ free-for-all ” argument ensued, and from this Cr Montefiore said the treasurer could clarify the position. He merely had to tell the finance committee chairman, an.; 1 payment could be made without Cr Brookes claimed that it was unfair to place one servant as judge over another servant. He wanted the finance committee to be responsible.

Ultimately the matter was left to the finance committee to investigate the matter of holiday leave, with 'power to act.