“1. Inadequacy of pay arising to some extent from stagnation in promotion. “2. The excessive amount of overtime, the small rate of pay allowed for it, and the severity of the night duty. The inadequacy of pay referred to in the first point was redressed by a new classification and scale of wages, which was to be uniform for the postal staff of the Sorting Branch and for the telegraphists (_vide_ Treasury reply), and which was ‘based upon the intelligible principle of paying for work solely according to its quality’ (_vide_ Mr. Fawcett’s report to the Treasury).” The grievances embodied in the second point were redressed by the recommendation in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Mr. Fawcett’s report, viz.:— “5. That the period of ordinary night attendance, both for telegraphists and sorting clerks, be reduced from eight to seven hours; already recognised at several offices as the proper amount of night attendance for the postal staff. “6. That payment as for overtime work at provincial offices, whether of telegraphists or sorting clerks, be, in the case of male officers, at the rate of one-fiftieth part of a week’s pay per hour, and in the case of female officers (who, as a rule, are not called upon to do more than 48 hours’ work per week) at the rate of one-forty-eighth part of a week’s pay. That when the overtime at any given office on a single occasion exceeds three hours, the rate of pay for such excess shall be one-quarter higher than the ordinary rate. As a rule the 16 hours which form an officer’s work for two days shall be so divided as to avoid giving him more than 11 hours’ work on either day; when an occasional exception is necessary, all excess beyond 11 hours in any one day shall be paid for as overtime, although the two days’ work in the aggregate may not exceed 16 hours.” The petition proceeded to point out that:—