46
21
observe that acceptance of Mr. Handy side's view would
nullify in at least one case a promotion over a halt
given not on seniority but on merit. Also if the same principles were continued among the non-British staff the resulting increases would be colossal and lead to
more anomalies and confusion.
51.
Mr. G.E. Unsdell, another member of the same
staff has advanced special grounds of protest against
his allotment. His case rests on two arguments which
have long since been examined by Government and rejected. We see no reason to recommend departure from the rulings given by previous Governors.
52. It has been suggested that Mrs. Cressey, appointed Temporary Mistress in 1929 at a salary of $2,100 should be placed on the revised scele for these posts at the point ($3,400) equivalent to
$2,100 on the old scale. We are unable to agree
with this view i.e. that the $2,100 should be regarded as representing service in the old scale and consider that Mrs. Cressey should receive $2,400 on the 1st of
January, 1930, with an increment 17th April.
53.
A similar position has arisen with regard
to six Vernacular Masters at the Normal School for
Women, viz.
New
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.