The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1913. MISCHIEF-MAKING;

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1910, 19 November 1913, Page 6

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1913. MISCHIEF-MAKING;

An attempt has been made to create the impression that tho Public Service Commissioner and his assistants behaved in an arbitrary and discourteous manner to a deputation representing a section of the Post and Telegraph Department, employees. We have read •■ the full report of the interview in question, and have not the least hesitation in stating that the attack which has been made on the .Commissioners is most unjust and quite unwarranted. The deputation wished to lay before the Commissioners certain resolutions passed by a conference of delegates representing branches of the; Post and Telegraph Service. The first of these resolutions was a direct impeachment .of the work of the Commissioners in the classification' of the Public Service. It charged the Commissioners with adop.ti.ng different standards of valuation to the

detriment of the Post and Telegraph Department, .made strong protest against this alleged differentiation, and urged upon the Commissioners the necessity for_ rectifying the anomaly. When this resolution was read, the Chief Commissioner at once asked for the facts upon which this impeachment of himself and his colleagues was based. The members of the deputation admitted that they were not *in a position to offer any detailed facts' in support of this resolution, but quoted two or three individual cases. In each ease mentioned the Commissioners showed that there were special reasons for the classification, scale provided. Under close questioning Me. M'm> vey, the chief spokesman of the deputation, was forced to admit that the deputation was not in a position to quote facts in support of the reflection'it had cast on the Commissioners because _it was impossible for them to obtain the necessary information. The deputation; however, claimed that they were basing their argument.to a great extent on their scrutiny of the salaries paid in the various Departments to ordinary clerks. The Commissioners then explained that .the rule had been adopted of enumerating officers as clerks instead of defining each separate position, and that it was impossible to compare the salaries without knowing tho work done by each. Itwas also pointed out that instead, of the Post and Telegraph Department being treated differently to otter Departments, the Postal Department classification was taken as the standard in framing the General Classification' List. The Commissioners, indeed, appear to have behaved throughout with exemplary patience! Their attitude is fairly summed up by the following remarks by Mr!Triggs, Assistant Commissioner, extracted from the official report of the interview: —

Mr. Triggs: I'would like Mr. Mulvey to tell us how it came about that this conference could plaee upon rteord a strong protest against this differentiation and urgo upon the Commissioner tho necessity for rectifying tho aufimalv without giving details. If.yon would only givo' details wo would consider tho cases. It is no uso coming down and throwing these things broadcast. Give us facts and wo will put theft right if there is any means of doing so. This surely is a quite reasonable attitude. Mr. Thomson, Assistant Commissioner, in reply to Mr, Mulvey, said:— We. have made special inquiries into the. work that each officer is doing— from heads of Departments, chief clerks mid others. The only objection ( aiii taking to the nnture of the statement here is that you say that the Post Office has been treated differently from the r»=t of the Service, to tho detriment of tho! Post Office, and yet you do not know the work these clerks are doing, Mr. Mulvey: 1 could illustrate an iso. lated case, 'lake an office like Hamilton where there are over 50 officers employed there are only two executive effieoro and our contention is that an offieo of that size warrants more than two executive positions. Mr. Thomson: That is all right but you should be prepared with facts' regarding this reference. I am objpetin* to you commenting upon whnt wotiava' dono wj,thtmt kuowitig >-Jj«t m Imivo aonfl,

~Mt. Mnlvey: It is praetieally irapossible for us to obtain that information. Mr. Thomson: Then you should not have made this statement ireflecting on the work of the Commissioners]. •Mit. Robertson,. Chief .Commissioner, took up the attitude that the objectionable reference to the Commissioners eould not be allowed to go without contradiction. Ho expressed his regret that the delegates, should decline, to amend or withdraw their resolution, and informed them that their proposals could not be considered until that was done. The mistake which tho conference appears 'to have made was in attacking the work of the Ooiumissioiiei's in general terms at all j and especially was this an unwise policy in view of its inability to produce evidence in support of its allegation. ,It should moreover have realised .that oven if individual cases of hardship might be provable, it would not necessarily justify a general impeachment of the Commissioners such as that indulged in. The Commissioners would be expected to deal with any specific cases brought under their notice in a reasonable way, but ft is asking too much* to expect them to submit to a general condemnation of their work by a branch of the Service controlled by them which when, pressed to support its general charge, with specific facts admits its inability to do so. Sir Joseph Wai*, and his followers, who object to the • removal of the Public Service from the political influences. which did'so much to discourage men of ability and attainment and encourage the tout and sycophant, are endeavouring to make. mischief out of the incident. This was only; to be expected from poli-i ticiahs of their stamp.