15

D.—2b

Society's Claim No. 73 : That machinists be classified and paid at the same rate as tradesmen. A majority of the Board has no recommendation to make, stating, " A special-grade machinist is classified at the same rate of pay as a minimum-grade tradesman, though he is not a tradesman. The work done by different machinists covers all the gradations from unskilled, work to highly expert work, though its range is necessarily limited to what can be done on machines. The Department's classification provides for a grading of machinists, but the grading can be carried out only by persons having an intimate knowledge of the work done by the individual machinist." Wo aro not prepared to recommend the claim as it stands — i.e., that these men bo classified as tradesmen —but are of the opinion that they should receive some further consideration in the matter of wages. There is no doubt whatever that machinists employed on the machines are, performing a high class of work, requiring close attention and technical skill. They become experts at their particular machines, and in our opinion aro worthy of more consideration than they receive at the present time. Departmental Claim No. 2 : Regulation 110 : First sentence lo be deleted. Subject, to this amendment, Regulations 110 and 111 to stand, but lime paid for at extra rale thereunder is not to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating overtime on the week. A majority of the Board recommends " that the following words bo prefaced to the first sentence of Regulation 1.10 : ' Where payment of an extra rate is specially authorized on account of the nature of the work'; and that the following words be added at the end of the same sentence ' but otherwise ordinary rates shall be paid for such time.' Wo do not recommend that the claim be granted as formulated, because it is recognized that some regular night work (e.g., work in the Lyttelton Tunnel) should carry a special rate, and has carried that rate for many years. The deletion of tho first sentence of the regulation would take away the authority at present given for such payments, but the addition of the words suggested by us would enable the management to authorize payment at the special rate in cases in which it was considered to be justified." We cannot concur in this recommendation, by reason of the fact that it proposes to deprive members of the Maintenance Branch who are working a regular shift between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. of the extra quarter-rate which they now receive. We cannot agree with any recommendation which proposes to reduce the earnings of those men between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Departmental Claim No. 3 : Regulation 114: Time worked as part of ordinary week's work when shift runs into Sunday (whether at, the beginning or the end of the shift) not lo count as Sunday lime, but lo count as part of the week's work. A majority of the Board has no recommendation to make in regard to this claim as formulated, but recommends that time worked on Sunday as part of the ordinary week's work, when commencing or finishing a shift, be paid for at time-and-a-half instead of at double-time rates. We again strongly protest against tho recommendation in this claim. To do this means a reduction of the overtime rate from double rates to that of rate and a half for Sunday work forming part of the week's shift. At present tho practice is that all time between midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday stands by itself and is paid for at double rates. To give effect to this claim moans, as previously stated, a reduction in the earnings for Sunday time, which wo cannot agree to. Departmental Claim No. 4 : Regulation 125 : Days mentioned in this regulation for which double rate is paid not to be added to annual leave. Day not lo be added to annual leave if member is given one whole shift off duly, such shift being one finishing or beginning on a day mentioned in the regulation. A majority of the Board recommends that any employee required to be on duty on any of the holidays referred to be given the option of (a) being paid at ordinary rates for the time he is actually on duty on such holiday, and having a day added to his annual leave, or (b) being paid a minimum of six hours-pay at double rates, in which case a day shall not be added to his annual leave. We are very much opposed to this recommendation, because, briefly, it moans that a member will bo deprived of one or more departmental holidays to which he is now entitled under the regulations, and to this we cannot agree. Before arriving at the above conclusions we gave long and careful consideration to the claims made. It will be observed that wo have agreed to tho conclusions arrived at in respect to fifty-two of tho claims, whilst in twenty-five we have cither supplemented the recommendations of a majority of the Board or disagreed entirely. With few exceptions, the majority of tho claims have been modified to such an extent as to be what we consider fair and reasonable under the circumstances. We therefore submit our remarks for your favourable consideration. Wo have, &c, M. J. Mack. The Hon. the Minister of Railways, Wellington. Hiram Hunter.