F.—6.

2

It seems therefore to be desirable that the regulations should require the departmental list to contain two columns showing length of service—one, for classification purposes, excluding length of service as messenger, the other including it. We have now to report our opinion— 1. That the officers whose names appear in Schedule A have not been placed in a class or grade lower than that in which, from the nature of the services they perform, they ought to have been placed. 2. That the appeals in Schedule B have been met by the Amendment Act, 1891, which repeals the grading of the sixth class. 3. That in our opinion the officers whose names appear in Schedule C ought to be placed in the classes and grades opposite to their names in the schedule. 4. That the officers whose names appear in Schedule D are not entitled to have the time during which they were employed as messengers computed in length of service for classification purposes. At the commencement of our proceedings we appointed Mr. Walter Martin to be our secretary, and we desire to state that we are indebted to Mr. W. H. Eussell for much valuable information. We have, &c, C. E. Eawson. Jno. Tuenbull. The Hon. the Postmaster-General of New Zealand. B. H. Caeew.

SCHEDULE A. We are of opinion that the following officers have not been placed in a class or grade lower than that in which, from the nature of the services they perform, they ought to have been placed.

6 3 fil 1 Class or Grade. Name ol Officer. Eemarks. 105 First class Orohiston, J. This officer appeals on the ground that his maximum salary has been fixed at £300. This maximum is fixed by the Act of 1890, and therefore is not a subject for appeal under the regulations. This officer is receiving the maximum salary in the second class. There appears to be no power to include his office in the first class. The Act defines the offices specifically which are included in that class, and no others can be removed into it. This appeal is not against the class in which the officer is placed, and therefore not a proper subject of appeal. (See Regulation 25.) This appeal is not against the class in which the officer is placed, and therefore not a proper subject of appeal. (See Regulation 25.) This officer objects to the position of his name on the list as to sequence. No ground of appeal. (See report.) 105 Second class Goodman, R. J. Mason, J. W. 105 105 Lubecki, A. D. 105 Third class Cumming, D. 8 9 105 105 1 3 Fourth class Harrington, H. W. Stevens, S. P. Fifth class, 1st grade Halliwell, L. Cresswell, A. E. Northcroft, E. Moreahead, E. T. Hill, C. Black, J. Martin, B. N. Furby, a. F. White, P. P. Houlihan, R. F. Dignan, A. M. Dean, B. 0. Rule, J. G. Dempsey, W. H. Salmon, T. B. Plimmer, H. Smith, W. Aitken, T. The question is whether temporary service is to be computed as part of length of service. It appears that " The Civil Service Act, 1866," does not apply to temporary service. (See Section 2.) 10 11 14 17 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 81 32 35 86 105 105 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 107 107 107 107 4 3 10 6 10 13 14 20 22 23 30 33 36 41 47 51 60 5 Fifth class, 2nd grade^ Sixth class, 1st grade, Postal officers Ditto 87 38 39 41 42 43 a 107 107 107 107 107 107 107 6 7 12 26 27 28 1 Coombe, H. G. Baker, J. Reid, P. Dryden, A. P. Brogan, V. J. Harle, G. H. Calders, J. Sixth class, 1st grade, Telegraph officers Ditto 46 4G 47 107 107 107 2 3 4 Mountier, E. J. Ward, W. T. Clark, E,