MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
141
140
21 July, 1968,
CROWN ARENTS ENQUIRY COMMITTEE:
Mr. HARRY MARTIN.
3199. Should you think 50 out of the 65, or more than that--45 rather than 50 would be nearer the nark.
3199. Fifty or more out of the 65 have been pro moted from boy copyists?—Yes.
3200. And the great majority of these boy copyists came in through the Civil Service?—Yes.
3201. (Mr. Leathes.) Would not all the boy copyists have come in through the Civil Service! The whole of them.
3412. (Chairman) You say with regard to the sup- plementary clorks; "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 shall be brought into the permanent estab
At pre- lishmen: sanctioned by the Colonial Offiev, sent they are only supplementary to that establish- ment." Could you explain to us just what the dif ference is?-All the other 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 manent Is there a list kept-I believe so, because I neinber cases where inen have been in the office me time, third-class men, and then the minute- teak has come round announcing that a certain man has been taken on the staff.
3205. None of you are on the staff then, techni cally?—So we understand.
3200. How long have you been in the five-This is my eighth year as a fourth cla-, clerk, previous to that I was a boy clerk for a year and a half. -327. You are on the staff?-Only a mentary clerk.
a supple-
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 à düzen have ft during my time.
3209. Perhaps a dʊz-n in your eight years' experi ne have left-That is so.
3210. Th mainler, of course, have continued. How many of them have been promoted into the third class?--Only one,
8211. In eight years? In eight years.
12. (Mr. Gibson.) Within that period have any been brought in from outside into the third class ?-- Y quite a mumber.
3213. But elections have not been made in your eight years from the fourth class to till 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 tide Yes,
3215. (Chairman) You want to be on the prma- nent establishment, so far as you understand what 1bar is-Ys. it is simply that we want to be op the same footing as the other classes.
3216. (Sir Francis Muratt.) You May Voll Are eligible for a pension on retirement ?--Yes,
8217. That implies in itself permanent service ?--- 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 pat it, or whether your numbers are reduced, and you might be got rid of if there was me so much work!
That is what we think.
3210. As a matter of far, have any of you been got rid of on account of the work being" smaller " 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.
"'7-Yes.
mentary
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 permaneutly employes!. 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 yʊn ?—-We have never understood that.
3223. I am afraid it has been forced upon your understanding, if there have been several people taken from other sources and only one from you?—Iɩ · 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 supplenuntary 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 le tween your position and that of the others that they are posts sanctioned by the Colonial Office, whereas yours have not had that sanction ?—I think that s
80.
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.?
£60 per annum.
3926. As a boy copyist you received how much, on appointment?-14s. a week.
3227. And after a year and a half you were pro mned into class IV., aryl got £60 a year?—Yes.
32274. 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 £501--T» £50, and quite recently it has been brought up to £70.
9229, (Mr. Baileg.)« Within what periul has it been 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 ?- Yes,
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 www appointed two, three, and four years ago are at the disadvantage of filing themselves only on alur the level of men who came into the office this year, while others who commenced at £60 five or six years ago find their seniority to the new men reduced to two years. To this iñembers desire to call atten tion, and express the view that, in equity, some ad- justment of salaries seems justified." "Have you any thing more to tell the Committee upon that? N pt that that is the great grievance of the class. 3232. That is thus principal grievance ?--Yes.
3233. You told us that £50 a year was originally. or, at least, when you were appointed, the sum pail.
is that so! G
3231. And that was eight years ago? -Yes, in 1001. 3225. And it remanel at £60 a year until when' For the years. I think.
32:36. Then what happened! In the beginning of 1904 was reduced to £50.
3237. That was th commencing salary; dil tha affet peopl who had already come in '--No.
3218. You gained on this? Yes, in comparison with the who started at £50.
32. For how long did the £50 a year commencing salary go n-Until the beginning of this year.
Its.
Mr. HARRY Mauris.
40. And then it was suddenly raised to £707–
3241. On that the Committee would very much like ... 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 list which cones round in January of each year.
3242. A statement of what the different increments are to be?-Yes,
3243. How does ou know that the commencing salary is £30 a year? Is there a document sent round? No, simply by the fact that he is appointed at that figure.
2211. There is no written document explaining the pates of pay of men in your class ?—Nothing at all.
3215. (Sir Francis Mowatt.) | suppose he is told when appointed: "You are coming in at £60 or £70 Yes.
·
3216. You do not say in your precis whether the fis 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.
3217. So as to know where they stand Yes. 324. What one might call the salary attaching to ri lice rather than to the man himself?—Yes; there was a time when we were not in favour of that, bat, as the scale has gone up and down, we think that must be the best thing.
3219. Is there nothing in the nature of a fixel scale as far as you know-Nothing at all.
3259. You Have not seen any form of this kind whahiting the same); it has never come round, show- ing th rates of pay 1- No.
3251. Anything of that kind is quite new to you? Y. I have never seen anything like it
3252. In point of fact, we know about the first ap pointments now; but still, on the question of salary. is anybody's salary ever increased or redured because hes 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 incre ment because he taught two of the technical staff the routing 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 increment -I do not know.
£10.
3254. (Mr. Bailey.) What did you get last time?—
3255, (Mr. Gibson.) Have you had that every year since you have been there ?-No.
3256. Have you had increments every year?—Yes. 3257. At different rates?--Yes.
3258, (l'hairman.) In the beginning you got £60, ol then what happened? Then received two £10 increments, and the £6 increments.
3259. The first year you gon £70, and the next £80 : then you got what "£86," then £92, then £98, and then 106.
8260. That was £8 of an increment?—Yes, and this Fest year I got £116.
3261. That was a £10 increment ?—Yes. 399962. (Mr. Bailey.) Is your case a typical «ne in gani 19 increments of that kind?-Quite.
263, Have not you gone up rather faster than the other men appointed about your time?—No,
3264. (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 received the Sattur Vi. £8, or £10, or sometimes have you had £10 Alen they have had £ti, anıl rice veran ?– No, the only Difference has been in the case of those who were at the time receiving £100, and I think they have always received £10, but anybuly getting less than £100 a year receives the increments have mentioned.
21 July 1998.
3265. And they all receive the same, as far as you know?-Yes.
3266. You would say "this 15 a £6 year" or an £ year-Yes, but there is one exception; one man has had £10 a year right from the beginning, and ho was appointed from outside the office at £50.
3267. This particular man has had £10 every year?
-Yes.
3268. What is his name 7-Mr. Reid.
3280. Why is he so fortunate?-Because, I think, these were the conditions under which he entered the office; he had a written agreement.
1003.
3270. When was Mr. Reid appointed 7-26th May,
3271. (M.. Gibson.) Is his name 8. G. Reid ?—Yes. 3272. (Chairman.) Five years ago he was appointed under a written agreement?-So I understand."
3273. But you know for a fact that he has received a £10 a year increment ever since then 7-Yen.
3274. What have the other people received during the same years-LU twico and £8 once?-£6 three times and £8 once.
3275. Is anybody else in the office under a written agreement?—I 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 80; anyhow, it is not generally known in the class.
3278. (Mr. Gibson.) There are one or two anomalies -could you explain them? I 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 increment that Mr. Reid had which has placed him above Mr. Bradstreet?-By the higher
rate of increment.
3270. There is another case:
Mr. Headley, who
joinel 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 1902; 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,
3281. He came in under a written agreement?--- Yes; there are some men at the head of the list who have always received £10; there arly two of them
Mogers. Robinson and Stantis El.
3282. Is it understood that any man with over £100 a year always receives at least a £10 incremen: -- We have nothing to go upon except practice.
3283. (Chairman.) 14 this office memorandum re- ferring to the supplementary clerks 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.'
3255. How did you come to see it ?--When I was appointed, it was shown to me, and I read it through.
3284. If you wanted to see it now, could you l—--1 euki go to the chief clerk and ask him to let me read it.
32×7. (Sir Francis Moraft.) That memorandum has been in operation since 1000, and in 1900 did it state that the scale would be £70 to £250!-Oh no; it simply said that nobody could expect to exceed £250 who did not show ability.
3288, 1 should like to ask you this one question: when these different variations of increment occurred,
was any explanation given to the clerks - Nulle at all.
32×0. When you expected your £10 increment, you gut LG-Yes.
• A.J. H.
3 uitein The K
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference-
C.O.885
19 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
1