10b.
Points in connection with the submitted salary scale.
It will be noted that the incremental advancement is
continuous, the reasons we put this forward is:-
Prior to receiving the initial and subsequent increments
a report on the all out efficiency of an officer is called for.
Should an officer receive a favourable report, on sound judgement
and his increments are received regularly then there should be
no reason why breaks, such as efficiency and proficiency bars
should be imposed. The mere fact that an officer is up to-date
with his incremental advances is proof of efficiency or ineffio-
iency on the part of the officer(s) responsible for reporting
on the fitness for for the incremental advance.
On the other hand should an officer lose an increment
this is "gone for good" unless he improves to such an extent
that he finally becomes a Chief Inspector.
As it has been presumed that one normally reached the
rank of Sub Inspector (provided examinations were passed) on
14 years service, this scale shows an increase of Pounds 65 per
annum and the maximum salary of an Inspector that of Pounds 100.
per annum over the Pre-War and proposed salary scales.
The rank of Chief Inspector is one of high importance
and should the right type of officer be selected to hold this
office, the salary enumerated is not excessive.
While times remain abnormal a high cost of living
allowance should be paid. It is fair to state that the reason
for granting such an allowance is due to the high cost of essent-
ials, a factor which is common to all irrespective of salary or
position.
We would suggest that a flat rate of $250. per month
be paid to each if this salary scheme we now submit is accepted?
We humble submit that the foregoing salary scale and
suggested H.C. of L. allowance is nothing but a fair request,
especially when it is a known fact that conditions now as compared
with 1941 are in the region of being up by 600%
210