PETONE WORKSHOPS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 470, 31 March 1909, Page 8

PETONE WORKSHOPS.

THE TROUBLE COES TO COURT. MEANING OF A CLAUSE SOUGHT. NOT SO SIMPLE AS IT SEEMED. Sitting in Banco yesterday, Mr. Justice Cooper heard argument in regard to a matter of importance to railway servants. This was an originating summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act, asking for in interpretation of Section 27 of tho Wellington and Manawatu Railway Purchase Act. The applicant was W. J. Taylor, carpenter, in the workshops at Petone, who alleged tliat his status was affected by the appointment over him of an employee formerly in the service of tho Manawatu Company. It was claimed that in all such cases the appointments might postpone or prevent the promotion of permanent employees to leading positions. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared on behalf of the applicant, and the SolicitorGeneral (Dr. Fitchett) for the AttorneyGeneral. The section in question, No. 27, of the Wellington and Manawatu Railway Purchase Act, reads as follows: — (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any Act or regulations, it shall be lawful 'for tho Governor, within one month after December 7, 1908, to appoint as permanent officers in the Government Railway Department, any persons who, on December 6, 1908, wero employed in tho service of the company. (2) Every such appointment shall relate back to and be deemed to havo taken effect from December G, 1908, and every ' person so appointed shall be deemed to have been continuously in the employ- ' ment of the Government Railway Department from that time. The points in dispute are as under: — • (1) Is the Governor, through the Minister for Railways, compelled to appoint • as permanent officers in tho Government Railway Department, all the servants of tho late Manawatu Company? (2) If such employees are appointed, do they take positions according to their rate of pay while in the service of the Manawatu Company? (3} Does their length of service with the Manawatu Company count for places in the, classification list, or is their length of service fixed as commencing on December 6, 1908, and must they therefore be classified accordingly? At the outset, his Honour pointed out that the status of some person unnamed was affected by the proceedings. Why was he not represented ? He could not direct "a person" to be served. ! Mr. Wilford; Ho is affected in that tho status of the whole of the workers who were formerly in the employ of the Manawatu line is involved. His Honour: As a class they should be •represented. Mr. Wilford: This is one case specially' picked out. Every facility has been offered us by the Minister to get an interpretation of the section. . His Honour: Supposing that I decide the point—l have, discretionary power—the judgment will not only bind the Crown, but also the unnamed person, and all the members of his class. ,'•'"• Mr. :Wilford:' The most you can say is that the. provision.. is directory, and not mandatory. His Honour: Supposing I say that it is director}'. My 'judgment will bind a class which is not represented. Mr. Wilford: All we want is an interpretation as to whether the Minister is compelled, or is directed under the section. His Honour: But what if the class affected complains that it was never heard? When the matter was first brought before me I understood that applicant would be out of Court unless you moved by March 31. It would appear, however, that it is not -an urgent matter. Mr. Wilford: It is urgent because D 3 is compiled on April 1, and I havo been asked by the Minister to get the interpretation before that date. The classification of all railway servants is fixed by the 'compilation of D 3, which fixes the status, place, grade, and section of every employee as on April 1. If D 3 is issued it will be too late to make alterations.

Subsequently his Honour said that upon looking over the affidavit he found mention of a particular person unnamefl. Mr. Wilf ord: That is a man named Merrett. ' The Solicitor-General: There is no merit in it. (Laughter.) Mr. Wilf ord: The Solicitor-General is pleased to be facetious. During further argument Mr. Wilford stated that the question resolved itself into 'ono between the railway servants who were mentioned in D 3 and the Government. His Honour: Bat surely if the contention of the Minister is .correct, viz., that he has no voice in the matter, it involves the status of the person in question, and all the members of his class? ... Dr. Fitchett contended that the whole proceeding was misconceived. It was based on the assumption that there was something to be done; whereas everything to be done—the making of the appointments—was done 12 months ago. His Honour was not called upon to give a declaratory judgment at all. Whatever the effect of Section 27 was, it was now. suspended. The Government Railways Act provided that every person should be classified. D 3 was merely a return which stated to Parliament what the classification was. At the present time the Department was classified. Supposing a worker was appointed at a certain rate, he went automatically into his proper grade. The Governor had, in reality, no function as to classification.

His Honour: I notice that I am asked re proposed appointments. Tho Solicitor-General: But all the appointments have, as I have said, been already made. • Mr. Wilford contended that the SolicitorGeneral had misconceived the point. The question was not only whether the Manawatu Company servants were appointed to the Government service, but also whether their former rates of pay continued, and their time of service counted from December last, or during their length of service with the company as well. His Honour said that it was quite clear, without expressing an opinion upon the construction of the section, that the ex-Mana-watu Company's servants should bo represented. Whether the effect of the provision was mandatory or directory, it was spent so far as question of appointment was concerned. As to tho other matter—that was really asking for a decision as to the meaning of Part 2 of the Government Railways Act. Dr. Fitchett: That is so. Mr. Wilford: I submit that that does not conclude tho matter. Replying to his Honour, Mr. Wilford subsequently, stated that the person unnamed in the summons was Charles Merrett, who was affected by both branches of the question. Mr. Wilford: Could judgment not be given subject to the right of the ex-Manawatu Company servants to move? His Honour: Oh, no. I could not do that. Upon the suggestion of his Honour it was decided that tho ex-Manawatu Company servants at Petone workshops should bo given an opportunity to meet together to appoint Mr. Merrett or another of their number to represent them at the hearing of tho summons. Mr. Wilford asked whon the hearing could take place. His Honour, in reply, said ho would hear the summons as soon as all the parties were ready. It did not appear to be an urgent matter. Mr: Wilford: D 3 is tho trouble. Dr. Fitchett: Tho document is merely a record of the classification—a Parliamentary paper. If anything is wrong in it, it can bo amended. His Honour stated further that when a representative of the servants formerly in the employ of the Manawatu Company was appointed he would give directions as to service, and appoint the date of hearing.