The Secretary, Prime Minister's Department:

I am in receipt of your memorandum of 18 October 1921, requesting advice as to whether the Public Service Arbitrator in making a determination relating to the Postal Electricians' Union was acting in excess of his statutory powers in including a provision that representatives of the Union should have for a period of one week when on leave full pay for the purpose of preparing and conducting the case.

The Public Service Commissioner takes the view that the decision involves an administrative rather than a judicial function and that Parliament did not, when passing the Act, contemplate the possibility of union representatives being granted this privilege.

So far as the intention of the Parliament is concerned it will be noted that section 19 provides that no person or organisation shall in any proceeding under the Act be represented by counsel or solicitor. No costs are allowable in respect of proceedings under the Act.

These provisions seem to indicate that Parliament had in mind the general practice which was representation by a member.

The award does not grant leave to the officer, but declares that when leave has been granted to any officer for the purpose of preparing or conducting a case before the Arbitrator, he shall, upon the certificate of the Arbitrator, be on full pay.

I think that this provision in the award is within the power of the Arbitrator to 'determine all matters . . . relating to . . . terms or conditions of service or employment'.

[Vol. 18, p. 107]