§ MR. M'CARTAN (Down, S.)I beg to ask the Postmaster General with reference to the promotion of the two telegraph clerks in the Central Telegraph Office over the heads of their seniors, whether he is aware that no opportunity of competing was given to other members of the staff claiming to be equally qualified in shorthand, and otherwise, who had from two to three years longer service, and on what ground this preference was given to the two clerks so promoted; whether any instructions are given to clerks on entering the service as to the advantages which these extra qualifications bring to the clerks; and whether it is to be now understood that preferential promotions are made in the 343 telegraph staff on account of other than telegraphic qualifications; I have also to ask on what grounds Messrs. C. Hughes and C. H. Garland, clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, were recently punished, the former in two hours extra duty without pay, and the latter suspended from duty for six hours; whether there was anything more than suspicion against them that they, being members of the Committee of the Postal Telegraph Clerks Association, were, during official hours, discussing the affairs of the Association; whether the two clerks denied the charge, and no evidence was produced to warrant any such suspicion; whether reparation will be made to these clerks; and whether it is usual to punish telegraph clerks at the Central Office on mere suspicion; further, I desire to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a considerable number of applications have been made by clerks living from three to 10 miles from the Central Telegraph Office, praying for a dinner hour when on 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. duty; whether every such application has been refused, and in some cases attempts have been made to punish the applicants in various ways; and whether, considering the clerks' liability to be kept on duty for hours after 10 p.m., he will consider the desirability of giving a dinner time to these clerks?
§ * MR. RAIKESThe two telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office who were promoted over the heads of their seniors were not promoted until diligent inquiry had been made with a view to ascertain whether anyone senior to themselves was qualified for the duties to be performed, but no seniors with the necessary qualifications could be found. It has not been considered necessary to give instructions that in selecting for exceptional positions special qualifications of obvious utility will be taken into account. Messrs. Hughes and Garland were punished, not on suspicion of discussing this or that, but for the undoubted fact that they were absent from their posts without leave. It is not the practice of the Department to make reparation for punishments inflicted in cases of proved breaches of ordinary regulations. I am aware that telegraphists who do not attend before two o'clock in the afternoon have not 344 infrequently applied that time might be allowed them after coming to the office for the purpose of taking dinner. I think there is really no ground for complaint, because this meal is required to be taken before the commencement of this duty, but I am not aware that anyone has ever been punished for making such a request. Although those attending from 2 p.m to 10 p.m. are not allowed a dinner half-hour, they are supplied with refreshments each day about 5 p.m., and they have also facilities for procuring supper before they leave at 10 p.m.
§ MR. M'CARTANWhat opportunity was given to clerks who possessed the qualification?
§ * MR. RAIKESI understand that a careful inquiry was made as to the qualification of the clerks, because it has always been thought desirable, as far as possible, to promote the senior officers. But the Controller satisfied himself that no clerk possessed the necessary qualification.
§ MR. M'CARTANAre we to understand that an opportunity of competing was afforded to all the clerks; and with regard to Mr. Garland, is it not the fact that he asked permission to go away and was not away without leave?
§ * MR. RAIKESMy information is to the contrary.