COUNCIL EMPLOYEES

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 94, 17 October 1940, Page 10

COUNCIL EMPLOYEES

ACCIDENT LIABILITY

NO ENROLMENTS

MADE

The difficulty which has arisen over the personal liability provision of the Home Guard and Emergency Precautions Scheme has been exemplified pointedly in the City Corporation service, for though some hundreds of men have applied for forms no enrolments have been completed. The council discussed the position in a general way last night, and there was agreement that the position should be made clearer than it is at present, so that every man who volunteered would know where he stood as regarded injury or ill health arising from his service. A meeting of district representatives is being held this afternoon to discuss the question in detail.

The Town Clerk, Mr. E. P. Norman, reported that although hundreds of the council employees had called at the enrolling points, not one would enrol on account of having to accept all liability for accident or' disability. At a conference between the organiser of the Home Guard and the controllers of the various departments of the Emergency Precautions Scheme last week it was decided to bring this before the council with a view to having representations made to the Government. In England men who suffered accident while on civil defence or A.E.P. duty were entitled to pensions from the Government, stated Mr. Norman. If they were servants of a local body they were still entitled to relief from the Government, but it bad to be shown that they were not on normal duty when they were struck down. A second point being raised was that men in the military side of the Home Guard, when called up for duty by an emergency proclamation, would be entitled to pay and pensions on the Army scale. It seemed that there was no provision for pay to those engaged on E.P.S. work in an emergency, and that differentiation was militating against enrolment for E.P.S. duties. DOUBTS ARE GENERAL. Much the same points were being raised generally, said the Mayor, Mr. T. C. A. Hislop. A number of enrolling officers had told him that everywhere they were asked what compensation would be paid-in the event of a person suffering injury or breaking down through service. Others were asking what they were expected to do and how much time they were to be asked to give, and to endeavour to clear up those and other points he had arranged that representatives of the various enrolling areas should meet this afternoon, and from that meeting valuable suggestions should be forthcoming. It was clear that in England volunteers were entitled to compensation, and here, naturally enough, men wanted to know where they stood and to know that their dependants would be looked after without waiting for an inquiry. Councillor P. M. Butler: An Emergency Precautions worker should be entitled to insurance without question. Councillor M. F. Luckie: The same question was raised at the time of the Hawke's Bay earthquake. MATTER FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. The Mayor said that the council carried its own insurance responsibility, but should any number of men be injured as a result of enemy action there would be insufficient funds to meet the position. The council had approached certain insurance companies with the proposal that they should cover the E.P.S. workers, but they would not accept the rir&. Councillor Butler: They won't accept the risk, but they want the men to take the risk. Unless this is cleared up there will be a lot of heart burning. It was clear that the council's insurance funds could not carry the risk and the council should act as conservatively as the insurance companies, said Councillor W. J. Gaudin. As the matter was the defence of the country and not of Wellington City, it was one for the Central Government and not for the City Council. , Mr. Hislop agreed with that point. A blow to New Zealand might come at one particular centre and the cost of meeting damage and loss of life and injury should fall upon the whole country and .not upon any particular locality.

which they have lost by doing their duty and making themselves fit to defend this country should occasion arise? If this has not been considered it is time it was. The time so lost should be counted in an apprentice's time. Due allowance should also be made when examinations have to be passed. I am told also that there are cases of employers withholding the promotion which is due to single men in offices. Married men or girls are being promoted over them in case they are called up and passed for service. These young men who are fit have to sacrifice their time to fit them to become soldiers. Is it not therefore their due that their careers should in no way be adversely affected?—l am, etc., FAIR PLAY.