HC Deb 09 March 1891 vol 351 cc469-70
MR. JOHN KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Regulations of the Post Office respecting sick leave are in accordance with the provisions of Clause 9, sub-section (1), of the Order in Council of 21st March, 1890, and, if not, whether he is prepared at once to issue instructions for carrying the Order in question so far as the clerks of the Second Division attached to the Post Office may be concerned?

*THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,) Cambridge University

The Regulations of the Post Office respecting sick leave are, so far as I am aware, not inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 9 of the Order in Council. That clause provides that no Second Division clerk shall be absent ill for more than two days without furnishing a medical certificate. That is to say, two days is to be the maximum period allowed before a medical certificate is furnished. But this is not equivalent to saying that a medical certificate shall not be required before the third day. The Post Office practice is to require one on the second day and in the Order in Council, as I read it, there is nothing to require that the Post Office practice should be altered.