PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
140
21 July, 1908.
C
CROWN AGENTS' ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:
Mr. HARRY MARTIN,
3198. Should you think 50 out of the 65. or more than that--15 rather than 30 would be nearer the niark.
3190. Fifty or more out of the 65 have been pro- muted from boy copyists?—Yes.
3200. And the great majority of these boy copyists came in through the Civil Service?—Yes.
nut
all the boy 3201. (Mr. Lathes.) Would cupyists have come in through the Civil Service?- The whole of them.
3202. (Chairman.) You say with regard to the sup- plementary elerks: "that as they now represent one- half of the total staff and become eligible for a pen- sion on ultimate retirement, it is considered that members should be brought into the permanent estab At pre lishmen: sanctioned by the Colonial Othe sent they are only supplementary to that establish- ment." Could you explain to us just what the dif ference is?-All the ther classes of the office seem to be on what is called the permanent establishment. while we are called simply supplementary clerks.
3203. The whole 65 of you are called supplemen- tary Yes. so that we must be supplementary to something. and I take it we are supplementary to the permanent establishment.
3201. How do the other people know they are per manem? Is there a list kept?-I belive so, because
I
ember cases where men have been in the office sn time. third-class men, and then the minute. book has come round announcing that a certain man has ben taken on the staff.
3205. Sone of you are at the staff then, techni- cally?—So we understand.
3206. How long have you been in the office?—This is my eighth year as a fourth class clerk. previous to that I was a boy clerk for a year and a bali.
3207. You ar the staff?-Only as a supple- mentary clerk.
320. How many of you do remain in the office? What proportion, speaking from your eight years" experience, remain and get promotel, or not, as the case may be, and how many pass on into other walks of life?-Very few leave the office; perhaps a duzen have ft during my time.
3209. Perhaps a dozen in your eight years' experi- ence have left?-That is so.
3210. The remainder, of course, have continued. How many of them have been promoted into the third class-Only one.
3211. In eight years? In eight years.
3212. (Mr. Gibon.) Within that period have any been brought in from outside into the third clas Y quite a number.
3213. But serions have not been made in your eight years from the fourth class to fill vacancies in the third class, with one exception-That is so,
3214. And the remainder of the appointments to the third class have been filled from outside!-- Yes,
3215. (Chairman) You want to be on the perma- nent establishment, so far as you understand what that is?Yes. it is simply that we want to be m the same footing as the other classes.
say
+
321 (Sir Francis Moratt.) You eligible for a pension on retirement? Yes.
3217. That implies in itself permaneni sevire? - Yes, it does; on the other hand, why should we be called supplementary?
3218. We will not trouble about the name for the moment; I only want to ascertain whether, in point of fact, you are permanently employed. I will put it, or whether your numbers are relucel. am you might be got rid of if there was not so manch work? - That is what we think.
3210. As a matter of fact, hay any of you been got rid of on account of the work begning staaller * No.
3220. Therefore, as far as your experience goes. there is nothing to show that your employment is not permanent?-Nothing at all.
3221. What you object to is the term "supple. mentary "-Yes.
3222. I point out to you that supplementary does not necessarily mean temporary; you may be a per manent supplement to the staff, so that as regards the permanence of your employment nothing has been said at present to show that you are not permanently employed. I quite take your point that you suppose the word supplementary means something, and ap parently it means that you have not the ordinary right of promotion into the class above you?—We have never understood that.
•
3223. I am afraid 11 has been forced upon your understanding, if there have been several people taken from other sources and only one from you?—It is thought that it might be necessary at some time in the future to reduce the staff by reason of the work falling off, and for that reason we are called supplementary clerks, because we should be the first to go in the event of anybody having to go.
3224. (Mr. Leathes.) Is not the real difference be tween your position and that of the others that they are posis sanctioned by the Colonial Office, whereas yours have not had that sanction-1 think that is
AU.
3225. (Chairman). Could you tell us about your scale of salary on commencing? What amount did you receive when you were first put into class IV.? -£00 per annum.
3226. As a boy copyist you received how much, on appointment—14s, a week.
3227. And after a year and a half you were pro- moted into class IV., and got £60 a year?—Yes.
3227a. Does everybody get £60 a year?—Is it known that that is the commencing salary?—No, for a time the commencing salary was £60, and then it was re- duced.
3228. To £10 or £50?--To £50, and quite recently it has been brought up to £70.
3229). (Mr. Baileg.)- Within what period has it ben brought up to £707-Only since the beginning of this year.
3230. As to those who were getting less than £70. were they at once raised to the minimum of £70- Fi
3231. (Chairman.) I take your note. No. 4, in front of 2. because it is better to get at the salary before we come to the increment, You say that those who were appointed two, three, and four years ago are at the disadvantage of filing themselves only on or abote the level of men who came into the office this year, while others who commenced at £6 five or six years ago find their seniority to the new men reduced to two years. To this iñenibers desire to call atten
11. and express the view that, in equity, some al- justment of salaries seems justified." Have you any- thing more in tell the Committee upon that -N except that that is the great grievance of the class
3232. That is th» principal grievance 7—Yes.
3233. You told us that £50 a year was originally. or, at least, when you were appointed. the sam paid:
is that mod £60,
3234. And that was eight years ago?--Yes, in 1901, 3985. And it remained at £60 a year until when? For three years, I think.
32. Then what happened? In the beginning of 1901 it was reduces to £50.
3937. That was the commencing salary; did that effet people who had already come in? No.
3298. You gained on this?--Yes, in comparison with the who started at £50.
32239.
For how long did the £50 a year commencing salary go on 7-Until the beginning of this year.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
Mr. HARRY MARTIN,
3240. And then it was suddenly raised to £70?— Yes.
3241, On that the Committee would very much like to know how this is announced; does it become known In the office that that is the amount paid to “John Smith," or is there a list put up! There is simply a hst which cones round in January of each year.
3242. A statement of what the different increments afe 1 be-Yes.
3243. How does one know that the commencing salary is £50 a year? Is there a document sent round? No, simply by the fact that he is appointed at that
tigare.
2211. There is no written document explaining the rates of pay of men in your class -Nothing at all.
3245. (Sir Branéis Mowatt.) I suppose he is told "You are coming in at 200 or when appointed: £70"? Yes.
3216. You do not say in your precis whether the 65 men you represent would like to have a fixed scale or not; would they prefer to have a fixed scale?- Yes, they would prefer it.
3247. So as to know where they stand? Yes. 321. What one might call the salary attaching to the thee rather than to the tuan himself?—Yes; there was a time when we were not in favour of that. but, as the scale has gone up and down,, we think that must be the best thing,
fixed 3213. Is there nothing in the nature of a cale as far as you know?—Nothing at all.
3250. You fave not seen any form of this kind wolabiting the same); it has never come round, show- ing th rates of pay -No.
3251. Anything of that kind is quite new to you? Yes, I have never seen anything like it
3252. In point of fact, we know about the first ap- dutments now; but still. on the question of salary. is anybody's salary ever increased or reduced because le does better or worse than his neighbours?--Hardly ever the only case 1 can remember happened quite six years ago, where a man received an extra inere ment because he taught two of the technical staff the ratan work of the department to enable them to take up their duties because the technical staff came along after the fourth class was formed.
3253. About the increment, what is your annual Merement ?--I do not know.
3254. (Mr. Bailey.) What did you get last time ?--
£10.
3255, (Mr. Gibson.) Have you had that every year since you have been there ?-No.
3251. Have you had increments overy year?—Yes.
3257. At different rates?--Yes.
4256, (Chairman.) In the beginning you got £60. l then what happened ---Then I received Two £10 increments, and three £6 increments.
3280. The first year you got £70, and the next £80; then you got what -£85, then £2, then £98, and the £106.
26. That was £s of an increment?-Yes, and this est year I got £116.
31. That was a C10 increment ?—Yes. 9262. (Mr. Barley) Is your case a typical one in tegard to increments of that kind?---Quite,
3263. Have not you gone up rather faster than the ollar men appointed about your time?—No,
3261. (Chairman.) This is what we want to know: when you have had these £10 or £6 or £8 increments, have all the other clerks in your class revived the Sete £G, C8, or £10, or sometimes have you had £1) Ahen they have had £8. and rice veran ?—No, the only ference has been in the case of those who were nt the time receiving £100, and I think they have always received £10, but anyholy getting less than £100 a year receives the increments I have mentioned.
141
21 July 1908.
3265. And they all receive the same, as far as you know?-Yes.
$266. You would say "this is a Lü year" or an £8 year? Yes, but there is one exception; one man
has had £10 a year right from the beginning, and he was appointed from outside the office at £50.
3207. This particular man has had £10 every year?
-Yes.
3268. What is his name?-Mr. Reid.
3260. Why is be so fortunate?-Because, I think, these were the conditions under which he entered the office; he had a written agreement.
1903.
3270. When was Mr. Reid appointed?-26th May,
3271. (Mr. Gibson.) Is his name 8. G. Reid ?—Yes. 3272. (Chairman.) Five years ago he was appointed under a written agreement?-No I understand.
3273. But you know for a fact that he has received a £10 a year increment ever since then 7-Yes.
3274. What have the other people received during the same years-£0 twice and £8 once?-£6 three times and £8 once.
3275. Is anybody else in the office under a written agreement 1-1 am not aware of any.
3276. Why was this man under a written agree ment?-I have no idea.
3277. Does anybody know?-I do not think so; anyhow, it is not generally known in the class.
3278. (Mr. Gibson.) There are one or two anomalies -could you explain them? 1 see that Mr. Reid, who entered on the 26th May, 1903, is now in receipt ap- parently of £100 a year, while Mr. Bradstreet, who entered on the 1st June, 1902, is in receipt of £97 a year, Is that explained by this special rate of pay and special inereinent that Mr. Reil had which has placed him above Mr. Bradstreet ?—By the higher
rate of increment.
3279. There is another case:
Mr. Headley, who joined on the 1st May, 1905; he is in receipt of the same rate of pay as Mr. Bradstreet, who joined three years before? I have the date 1802; I think 1905 must be a misprint."
3280, (Chairman.) Broadly speaking, the others have had the same increases. but this Mr. S. G. Reid is an exception ?—Yes.
321. He came in under a written agreement?--- Yes; there are some men at the head of the list who have always received £10; there are only two of them.
Messrs. Robinson and Stanfiebl,
3282. Is it understood that any man with over £100 a year always receives at least a £10 increment?- We have nothing to go upon except practice.
3283. (Chairman.) Is this office memorandum re- ferring to the supplementary vlerks hung up in the office -No.
3281. Have you ever seen it?—I have seen it, but it is in the keeping of the chief clerk.
3285. How did you come to see it ?-When I was appointed, it was shown to me, and 1 read it through.
3280. If you wanted to see it now, could you?--I could go to the chief clerk and ask him to let me read it.
Francis 3287. (Sir
Mouft.) That memorandum has been in operation since 1900, and in 1000 did it state that the scale would be £70 to £250?—oh no; it simply said that nobody evuld expect to exoced £250 who did not show ability.
3288. I should like to ask you this one question : when these different variations of increment occurred, was any explanation given to the clerks - None at all.
3240. When you expected your £10 increment, you got £6?—Yes.,
1.4.3. II.
וי-