RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1368, 20 February 1912, Page 4

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

THE QUESTION OF PROMOTION. IBi TeleEratu.—Press Association.) Dunedin, February 1!). A sitting of the Railway Appeal Board was held to-day to consider appeals liy several members of the first division against the promotion of Messrs. Wellings and M'Govern, clerks in the head oflico. The board consisted of Messrs. W. K. liiseldeu, S.M. (chairman), J. Gray (representing the first division), and P. Gaiuos (representing tho second division). Mr. Davidson (chief accountant) represented the Department. At the outsat Mr. Ennis, who appeared for the appellant, named li. P. Moir, mid that the Department had refused to allow Mr. l'iper (district traffic manager) to give evidence, although he had expressed willingness to do so. Mr. Piper was an important witness, and his non-attendance place Moir at a disadvantage. If tho Department had power to prevent the attendance of officers, here would be created an impression that there would bo very little use in bringing an appstil. The chairman .said the matter would l>o considered when Moir's case came on. Thi> first appeal was that ot John Drown, flntionmaster at Burke's, who alleged that in the classification list for 1911 Messrs. Wcllings and M'Govern. clerks in the head office, wore promoted above him, although (heir positions were beneath his on the previous classification. Appellant's ]xisitiou was No. 72 on D 3 list, whereas Wolliiigs and M'Oovern were Nos. 97 and 99 respectively. Ho appealed ngninst their promotion on tho ground that his position should have been maintained. , j i Mr. MacPherson, who appeared on behalf of Brown, said Sellings and M'Govern had been promoted from &M to ,£2lO per annmn, although no promotion was given to appellant Mr. MaoPhor~on quoted a letter showing that Mr. Piper had recommended the promotion of Brown to Grade 9 as stationinafiter or clerk, and wont on to ask that Mr. Piper be produced as witness. Mr Davidson said there was absolutely nothing against Brown. Tho general manager had dreJhied i» nllow Mr. Piper to attend. In view of hat ho (Mr. Davidson) could not allow Piper to obtain other instructions. Hβ was prepared M admit all the evidence that Piper could give-. . Mr. MaePhorson said if Piper vras to bo debarred from attending ho would ask for an adjournment, so that the institute could tako the matter into consideration. . . The chairman said it scorned to him that, it was unreasonable to insist on having a witness produced when the other side was willing to admit such witness evidence. After luncheon Mr. MacPhcrson announced that they had agreed to drop witnesses in tho case. Mr. Davidson said there were throo appeals hero, two at Christclrurch, and two clsovhero, all beinjr exactly the wine. Tho appellants were .1. Brown (sic.tioii-mnsli-r at Unites}, P. Hnrlhind (clerk at Grey mouth), P. Bond tclcrk at "in.*; - church). 11. Green (stationmastor at Milburn). V. Graham (stationniiistor nt IJosj). K, Moir (clerk nt Dn'milin), and I?. Hnehanan (clerk at Timaru). \\«llin?» and M'Govorn had hoon engaged ior fcv-ni-iil years -..n special work in (he locomotive and maintenance branches, and thn General Manlier c-nn>ideriHl their knowledge and experience was of such value as to warrant tin , incic.i-vc given. Jim necessary conditions did not apply o appellants in regard to the homlkuis held by Sellings and M'Gov-ni. l £-ns vmila.r to tho?e of Welling* find M'Govern oeenrreel in every year's elassihcation. _ In Green's appeal Hie conditions wero similar to those in the previous cn.'e, cflicierit and satisfactory service wing admitted. In Moir's case'it was stated that ftppol- ' hut lia«l done work which the men who had boon promoted had been doing. ■ Mr. Davidson said he would not admit (hat'appellant had done tin's work, and denied that Piper could be in a position to givo evidence on rh.« point. Decision was reserved in nil the cases.