RAILWAY SERVICES.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1532, 30 August 1912, Page 8

RAILWAY SERVICES.

! INCREASES OF PAY. I l ACTUARIAL ESTIMATE OF COST. J The dispute between the Bnilway Offi- , cers- , Instiliilo and tho Department of [• liailways rcgardiiiß tho cost. of. rcclassi--3 lying tho railway ollicers ou the lines 1 of tho postal classification is virtually set- • tied by tho report of the Government j Actuary which accompanied a report by J thu Public Accounts Committee prVwiiteil 3 to the of iiepi-etentativcs yesteri day al'ternooii. The two sets of estimates were referred lo the Public Accounts Committee, which reported that the annual increases would - be as follow:— 0 "First year, .£12,240; second year, .fiSCM; third year, JCBRSS; fourth year, ' ,£2310, after which the co>t of the eliango . remains constant nt MlfiW per niinum." ; • These figures are taken from the report. - of tho actuary (Mr. Morris Pox), 110 ■ states that the dispute was largely caused 1 by erroneous descriptions of the items. The effect of the proposed change is shown in the following tabic:— 5 . Annual Annual increase, cost. Total cost. Year. £ £ £ '■ First 12,240 12,240 12,240 Second 8,695 20,035 33,175 1 Third • S.GSS 2f),C20 02,73.5 Fourth 2,310 .'11,060 9i,755 31.9G0 94,755 Column 2 contains the figures put for- . ward by the Officers' Institute, and Col- - umn i the approximate figures quoted 3 by the Department. The Department's figures have been revised since the estimate submitted to tho Eoil.wnys Com- . mitleo Inst year was prepared, the total , annual cost being then giyen as' .£87,135. 3 "It appears to me," Mr. Fox state, ' that what the Committee really wish : to arrive at is the annual cost of tho proposed change as given in Column 3. . Iho annual cost (over and above the . original salanis) of giving the ; increases (vide Column 3) is there- ) tore as follows: First year, i12°40- • second year; .£20,(135; third year ; .£>O,G2O; fourth year, ,£31,9611; after which' . i!?, ot tlle cll >i"ge remains constant at . .£31,960 per annum. These figures differ • by only ,£99 per annum from the state- ■ nient prepared by the Railway Depart- • ment, and the whole matter in dispute has consisted of tho different ways in which tho cost has been shown, and not , in any real difference between the fi°- ' ures themselves." ■ . ° , T ilor . B ,vas a brief general discussion ' following tho presentation of the report, • It (!™ ntln S a suggestion offered, the . lion. 1-. JI. B. Fisher moved to refer the . report to the Bnihvay Committee. ! Ihe Hon. \X. H. Herries (Minister for Railways) paid he had no objection to ; the report going to tho Railway Committee, but he was anxious that there should' i he as little delay as possible. What ho ■ had proposed to do was to confer with the institute directly the report camo from the actuary. That tho State ought to pay its employees well was indisputable, lie was prepared, as far as the finances would allow, to meet tho employees' wishes. Sending on the report to' the Railway Committee would mean delaying the matter to a certain extent. He wanted to get his Bill through. He could assure the House that ho was going lo give, fho matter his best attention. What he desired more than anything else was on amicable settlement with the employees of the-State. Mr. A. M. Myers (Auckland East) said that it was only right that tho Minister for Railways should have an opportunity to meet the institute, and discuss the matters in dispute. It was necessary to liave anenthusiastic railway service, and that, could not bo got unless the members of (ho service were, adequately remunerated. Ultimately, it was decided to refer the Bill to the Railways Committee.