STATE WORKSHOPS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 469, 30 March 1909, Page 6

STATE WORKSHOPS.

ADDINGTON INQUIRY RESUMED. EVIDENCE BY MR. RONAYNE. DETAILS OF THE STAFF SYSTEM. ■ . (BI TBUEGBIrH— FUESS ASSOCIATION) Chrlstohurch, March 29. The Addington Workshops inquiry was resumed to-day. The Chairman said that certain points had cropped up during the hearing of evidence, and had arisen, during investigation by the board of that evidence, and he- had therefore asked Mr. Ronayno to appear and elucidate these points. . MR. RONAYNE. " Mr. Ronayne thanked the board for their courtesy in supplying him with various questions to which replies were desired. Replying to the board's question, he stated that bhe Hon. J. E. Jenkinson saw him on several occasions, and made suggestions in. regard to concessions to boilermakers. In some cases these were considered reasonable, and given effect to. Tho foreman had the power to suspend men <from duty, but had no power to dismiss them. Mr. Ronayne then described the manner in which the work done by railway employees is reviewed each year. It was possible that a foreman might recommend a man, and overlook his t deficiencies rather than appear before- the Appeal Board, but the close supervision exercised by workshops' managers and locomotive engineers rendered such a contingency a remote one. Punishments. " "Mr. Ronayne also described at some considerable length the staff system, and detailed reasons for its adoption. The principal reason for the adoption of, the system was to ensure .uniformity in the method of engaging labour, and in the imposition of punishments for breaches of- the regulations. Offences were reported to headquarters, and dealt with by a punishment board consisting of .the chief, mechanical engineer, chief engineer, chief traffic manager, and stores' manager. This board, after considering reports from the local officer, made their recommendations to the general manager, who gonerally adopted such. By this means uniformity of punishment for similar offences was ensured: • Casuals. As to the probationary, period in the case of casuals before they were transferred to the permanent staff, he stated that the local officer was given an entirely free hand. It was stipulated that incompetence on the part of employees was to be reported at once by circular. Officers had been instructed .that it was not intended that men should complete their, probationary period if the;; proved to be incompetent. The Departmental records did not support the' statement mad© by a witness that in some cases names of men who were dead had been put on the list for employment as casuals.; The names of 270 menj who could s be' employed as casuals, had been supplied to the local officer at Addington.' Of these 152 had beea appointed, 23 had not notified a.ny change of address, 49 had declined employment, 8 had been rejected, and 7 had been ineligible. There'were 27. in respect to whom theliead office had no notice as to how their applications were dealt with. .■..-... Apprentices. In the interests of. the Department and of apprentices it was necessary to have a probationary period for apprentices. The period of apprenticeship was, in alniost all cases, five years, and as bhat period was generally short enough, the Department did not encourage 'tho transfer of , apprentices. In 1905 there were 203 who completed their apprenticeships, and of these 194 remained on the staff. This did not indicate that the probationary period was insufficient. When an apprentice had completed his time his services were reviewed, and if he had made satisfactory progress and was recommended, he got the minimum rate of pay for journeymen, 9s. 6d. per day. There were 234 tradesmen at Addington.' Of these 175 were in the first grade, and received from 10s. to 10s. 6d. per day; 59 were in the second grade, and received 9b. 6d. per day. Included in these were 46 lads who had served their apprenticeship at Addington.' There were seven railmakers and 122 strikers and holders, of whom only 36 were in the second grade. No superfluous machinery was employed in connection with tho staff system. Mr. Ronayne gave the following particulars regarding wages and expenditure at Aldington:—l9os, £58,149; 1906, £59,728; 1907, £67,876; 1908, £74,663; 1909, £88,393; total, £348,809.

Men who had been Injured. : In dealing with tho staff, the general manager was assisted by a properly-equipped staff office in Wellington. All requisitions from administrative heads received careful consideration, and were dealt with by the general manager and chief mechanical engineer. They wero not always accedod to— (1) because they were not considered necessary, and (2) because funds wero not available. Where the requests were reasonable, where compliance with them would reduce the cost of manufacture, and when there were funds available, they were agreed to. When the recommeridatidns of local officers as to the dismissal of men were not acted upon it was for some very good reason. A man might have been seriously injured in the service, and not capable of doing a very hard day's work. The manager might then consider that, iu the special circumstances, it would be an unjustifiable and cruel act to discharge him. They therefore endeavoured to find him suitable light work. The workshops manager might consider that retention of such a man might tho cost of production, but the Department, in retaining him, were only doing what any private employer would do.

Rewards for Inventions. Quite a largo number of applications had been received for'rewards to employees in respect to improvements in machinery or appliances. A largo number of the devices submitted were by no means original, but might not be in uso in New Zealand railway -workshops at the , present time. In one case ah employee had been granted £10 for a device not original, and liad declined the amount as he considered that it was worth £'10. In other cases, where it was clearly proved that a man had noticed something that tended to cheapen the cost of work, he (Mr. Ronayno) was always prepared to recommend tho Minister to grant a special bonus. It was an invariable rule to recognise any special devices introduced by men in tho second division, but tradesmen or the chief mechanical engineers got no special recogniton for devices introduced or invented by them. To Mr. Hampton: It sometimes took a month to investigate a man's claim to recognition in respect to an invention or device.

CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER'S EVIDENCE. Tho chairman then asked Mr. A. L. Beattie, chief mechanical engineer, a number of questions. Mr. Beattie stated that comparisons were regularly made of tho cost of work at different railway workshops. It was not always practicable to "mako such comparisons owing to the variation in price of material locally supplied., Tho results of such comparisons ran fairly close. If one workshop was a little ahead of another tho fact was generally accounted for by local circumstances. Thero were local contracts and, in some instances, material cost less at some centres as compared with others. When any diversity occurred that could not bo explained on these grounds, it was very closely investigated.

Government Book-keeping. The system of accountancy followed by tho Department was generally satisfactory. To anyono not acquainted with tho • requirements it might appoar complicated, but it was the result of years of experience, and very closo application on the part of experienced accountants. Book-keeping in the Government service differed somewhat from that in use in ordinary business, because the Departmental heads had to give clabor- , ate' details iu their reports to Parliament.

There was a proposal to rearrange tho workshops machinery, and to either electrify it or drive it by a suitablo producer gas apparatus, but, up to the present time, action had been delayed on account of the large outlay involved. As to the rate of increase of new and repair work, ho wae not in a position to state a definite figure. It was probablo that Addington would have to do a lot of work for the North Island lines. Ho would submit a statement giving a retrospective view of the rate of increase. The Alleged Discontent. Regarding the allegations of discontent at Addington, he said that any discontent had been small, and arose from the fact that certaiii allowances wore made by Act of Parliament to men doing especially skilled work. Certaiii men profited by the allowances, and others did not. Those who did not immediately applied for consideration of their claims, and those, when justly based, were dealt with' satisfactorily. That was tlio only scintilla of discontent, and he thought that much more had been made of it than there ought to have been. Projected Electric Machinery. The scheme for electrifying machinery at the workshops had not been lost sight of. Price Bros., in taking contracts from the Department for locomotives, had purchased certain portions from the Department, which undertook to supply them at certain dates. Owing to the non-arrival of certain material, , occasionod by delays in shipment or in transit, and on one occasion by the loss of the ship; the Department had taken gear from its own engines in order to keep faith with Price Bros. Such gear was supplied to tho contractors at the rates mentioned in tho specification. Shop Charges. The percentage to cover shop charges at tho workshops was fixed at 15 per cent, by a commission in 1876, which dealt with railway matters'. The items covered wero as follow:—Watching shops, storeman's wages, repair'and workshop engines, geWral charges of workshops (including cost of upkeep of machinery and tools, coal for smiths' fires, and pumping water), fire brigade practice, foremen's wages, jury and witness pay (the amount received by employees is collected and credited to this order), time of employees attending Appal Board, stationery for workshops, holHay pay, contingency vouchers, wages of shunter at Addington yard, apprentice accident pay, apprentice sick pay, apprentice holiday pay, clean up of shop yard, pack and unpack effects of workshop employees transferred, and workshop steam crane departments. His experience was that 15 per cent, covered these heads of expenditure. Very littlo time- was lost in Addini;ten in replacing belts. In reply to the chairman, Mr. Hampton said that he would be prepared to address the commission on behalf of the workmen to-morrow morning. The chairman said that Mr. Beattie s address would be taken after Mr. Hampton's address. The inquiry was adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow.