SALARY REDUCTIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 11 May 1922, Page 5

SALARY REDUCTIONS.

EDUCATION BOARD’S ATTITUDE. PROPOSAL NOT APPROVED. —lt is with regret that the board gives effect to the department’s letters in respect to the reduction of the salaries of the office staff, such reduction to take effect as from May 1, and in accordance with the scale,” was a recommendation of the finance committee of the Taranaki Education Board received at yesterday’s meeting. When this came before the board Mr. s G Smith, M.P., said he was not at all satisfied with the department’s reduction proposal, which he thought was most inequitable and was typical of the W whole Government retrenchment pronoeals. It meant making great inroads on the wages of boys and girls, * and as a result of it mere juniors would T lose £lO per annum off their wages, whilst the highest salaried officer would lose only £2O. He took the opportunity of protesting, as he felt that the juniors had never been paid adequate salaries. He thought that this particular paragraph should be referred bock to the finance committee for fur--ther consideration. Mr. R. Masters, M.P., questioned the legalitv of the reduction. The Public Expenditure Act provided for a reduction for those receiving a bonus, but no bonus had been given in this case, though an increase in salaries had been made for efficiency. The speaker thought a legal opinion should be taken in order to see if the department was legally entitled to do as they proposed. Every member of the finance committee was opposed to the reduction, but with the state of the board’s general fund it was an utter impossibility to make up ■fte deficiency by this means. He moved that a legal opinion be obtained. TTie ehairman (Mr. P. J. H. White) agreed that Mr. Masters had fairly stated the position, but the speaker thought that the passing of the report would not prevent legal advice being taken.

This view was not generallv accepted. Mr. Smith amended Mr. Masters’ motion to read “that the paragraph relating to reduction in salaries be referred back to the finance committee to take legal advice,” Mr. Masters seconding. Mr. Smith said the reduction proposed was greater than that made by the Arbitration Court, which had gone into the question, only reducing the wage of x tfee highest paid artisan by £l3. a year, while an office junior was asked to sacrifice £M), wkieh was moat inMr. Lees expressed himself as one wta> believed that wages were coming down faster than the cost of living. He supported Mr. Smith’s amendment. After further discussion Mr. Smith’s amendment was pvt and carried, Mr. Trimhto ilinintiig,