RAILWAY SERVANTS WHO ENLIST

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2892, 3 October 1916, Page 8

RAILWAY SERVANTS WHO ENLIST

A REPLY TO THE MINISTER. Sir,—Herewith please find copy of my remarks on the Minister's replj' appearing in this morning's issue.—l am, etc.,

M. J. MACK, Genera], Sec. Amalgamated Society Railway Servants. September 30. (Enclosure.) Wellington, Sept. 30, 1916. The Hon. Minister of Railways, Sir, —I liavo to ackno«ieage~ receipt of your letter of yesterday's date in answer to iny letter of September 27 complaining of the treatment meted out by the Government to returned railway men soldiers and to those members of "the railway servico who had enlisted but were rejected on the ground of mcdical unfitness.

I am glad to note from your letter that with respect to the men who presented themselves for enlistment, but were rejected on, tho ground of being medically unfit, the Government has taken steps to remedy the injustice complained of in my previous lotter. As to the men who have served at the front, and who on their return seek . re-employment with the Department,, nobody would for a moment doubt that these men have carried with them "the best wishes of yourself, tlio General Manager, and other responsibleofßcors of tho Railway Department," or that "those who suffer injury in tho service of tho Empire likewise have your fullest sympathy." But,.as I indicated in my previous letter, it is not sympathy that the men want, but fair and just treatment. The attitude taken \ip in your lettor now under reply is that a returned railway man-soldier who resumes his employment in the Railway

Department under the circumstances mentioned in my previous letter, should. not have a claim for compensation. ; against the Railway Department in the event of an accident arisingowing to a condition of health or disability caused, while on active service, but that his claim should be against tho Defence! Department. In other words, tho Railway Department must safeguard what it pleases to consider its owe interests as compared with what it considers tho interests of the' Defence Department, before considering the just and. fair claims of the men. I suggest'that this' is merely trifling with a serious position. Tlie Railway Department and the Defence Department are both Departments of State; both are responsible to the public; both have to be maintained by the public and at the> publio expense. What would be simpler than that tho Railway Department should allow the returned railway mensoldiers to resume thoir employment unconditionally, and that any questions of liability for accident should be adjusted, if necessary, between the twoDepartments ? Why should tho mon ba compelled to fall botween the two Departmental stools? Why should they be compelled to live in idleness and bo refused the opportunity of earning a. livelihood for themselves and their families while two Departments of Stat© are perhaps wrangling upon a. question oi liability which could and. should be settled without the least delay or difficulty? I have before mo at tho present moment a file of paperw in connection with one.railwayman, returned soldier, who is in this unfortunate position. He was discharged from" military sendee several weeks ago. The Railway Department is willing to reemploy .the man only on the condition, that ho signs an agreement indemnifying tlie Department against liability to' pay compensation. 11c writes to me: "'Could you please explain if I am. entitled to any pay from the Railway Department since the date of my discharge from military service?" I would be much obliged if you will please me in.a position to reply to this question. Thero is one other point in your letter to which I desire expressly to refer. You say that for tho purpose of protecting employers from liability the Legislature has, -under tho Workers' Compensation for Accidents- Act p provided machinery to enable an employee to indemnify an employer against responsibility for accident resulting from known defects of the employee, so that' tho principle of the Railway Department in obtaining an indemnity ia cases such as those under disoussion is ;souiid. 1 take leave to differ from this. : view. The legislation to which you. refer was enacted in timee of peace; and tho particular provision of tho statute upon which you rely has reference to known dcfocts of the.employeo at tho time of entering tho. service. Such a case is very different from the case of a man employed in a public Department who goes to the front in defence of the Empire, who was physically sound in overy respect when ho onlisted,. and who on hie return from active service is perfectly fit for em- • ploy men t, but is suffering from some physical condition developed while oa active service. Is it reasonable—nay, more, I ask, is it decent?—that a publio Department in whoso employment the man was before enlisting should refuso now to rc-omploy him except upon the terms of his signing an- agreement indemnifying tho Department, which is in fact after all the very publio in whose interests he went to serve at the front, against liability to pay him compensation in tho event of his meet? ing with an accident during his employment resulting from a physical condi- . tion brought about as the result of his active service at tho front in the interests of that same, public?

Apart from the general question referred -to in this letter and iii my'previous lettor, a specific instance may b® given to show that returned railway men-soldiers havo reason to complain of their treatment on resumption of service with tho Department. I have in mind the case of one man who went to the front, fought at Ypres, at Ncuvo Chapelle, and at Loos and other engagements. He came back to New Zealand, was discharged from military service, and re-entered the service of the Railway - Department, only to find that ho had been superseded on the DS list by no fewer than about 300 men. who were junior to him. I note that you Tvill tako an early opportunity of placing before -Cabinot the representations made by me on behalf of the men, and I trust that as a result of such referenco to Cabinet returned railway men-soldiers will not be subjected to the. difficulties and delays in connection with their resumption ot work in tho Railway Department to which thev,havo been subjected up till now. I would also request that you might seo your way to instruct your Department, pending the? reference to Cabinet, to undertake the responsibility of allowing the men to resume their employment-unconditionally, and a reply to this effect will bo appreciated. I have the honour to he, sir,

Your obedient servant, M. J. MACK, : General Secretary.Tlie Hon. Minister of Railways, Wellington.