RAILWAL APPEALS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1376, 29 February 1912, Page 2

RAILWAL APPEALS.

SORE POINT RAISED. DEPARTMENT'S STRANGE VETO. WITNESSES DUJCKED,' A silting of tin. liailway Appeal Board μ-iis belli yesterday, when-live cams were dealt with. In tils- first three cases, the board. conFisted or Or. J|v\rtlmr,- S.M., Mr. C: 1 , . Hyiin (Fir-t Division), ami Mr. .Martin T.po (Trallic Division). The liailway Department was represented in all dip cases by Mr. 11. Davidson. FIRST CASE, STATIONJIASTEH'S AI'I'KAL. William Thomson, stalionmaster, Grev-tnu-ii. appealed against the promotion of Vi. A. Wellings and 1 , . J. M'Uovern to Grade 0 on the classification lter of 1011. Mr. ihoinson. who conducted his own ease, stated that he possessed as many qualifications as those who had Wii promoted over his h-entl. In innkiii" these promotions. Clauses 1 and 2 of fiegulation 40 had bee'n ignored by tho Department, especially (lip last part of Clause 2. lie had boon punished, and his whole career and future superannuation detrimentally afi'ected, on the assumption that he had not had tho necessary training to fit him for a certain position. He ought to have bppn promoted, and the Department had t'heir remedy if ho proved unfit. There was no vacancy nor new position. Therefore, why these promotions? Allowances for' special workcould be granted by the Minister, and there would have been no exception if that had been done, so long as the men were not promoted over the heads of others. Ho mentioned that he had askedfor tho attendance as witness of Messrs. Whitcome. (District Traffic Manager), Munro (Chief Traffic Auditor), Dawson (Traffic Inspector), Welling?, and M'Govern. The reply, .which lie received from the-Department « - ns to the effect that Messrs. .Munro and Dawson would at:tend, but tliut the attendance of 'Messrs.'M'Govern and Wcllings could not be arranged for. No mention was made of Mr. Whitcombe. Returning to the merits of the ease, appellant stated that Messrs. M'Govcrn and Welling had only been required to specialise in ono kind of work. His own present work was more arduous end complicated .than mere- office routine work. When, after sixteen years' service ho was looking forward to promotion he was superseded by men who could not, probably, do 5 per cent, of his work. He could perform their duties with very little tuition. Other men had been taken from the outside traffic department to do this "special" work, and they had not failed. Who is Supreme—Men or Manager? Mr. Davidson, tho Department's representative, said that the appellant had been wholly trained iu the traffic branch of the Department, in which he had given satisfaction in the discharge of his duties; and, when n vacancy occurred for which he was eligible, his claims would bo duly considered. Messrs. 'Wt-llinss and M'Govcrn. against whose elevation from grade i) to grade 10 appeal was made, were clerks in the head office in Wellington. Their services -had- been confined to the locomotive and maintenance branches and the head office. In the last-named they had for several years been solely employed on special work relative to tho two branches named, and none of the members of tho traffic brnnch who had been passed over by them possessed the necessary knowledge to fill tho positions occupied by them. Tho duties in which Messrs. M'Govcrn and Wollings had been engaged had grown in difficulty and importance in recent years, and the general manager considered that their knowledge and experience merited an increase in salary to I'2lO ppr annum, which increase (Carried with it promotion from grade, lll'to grade 9. Herniation 28 (made under the Government Railways Act) provided that all promotions should bo, contingent, inter alia, on efficiency and suitability, and in neither of lho>e .respects -iva's the appellant qualified in relation to tho positions held by Messrs. M'Goveni and Wellings. So far as regulation 40 was concerned, the general manager had certified that those two officers M-ero the best suited to the appointment-'. Eor any vacancy in tho traffic branch Wellings and M'Govevn could not be considered; and the appellant was not prejudiced or debarred from advancement to any position, within tho scone of his training. The procedure followed in the cases of Mollings and M'Govcrn was in no way exceptional, as promotions of a similar kind occurred in every year's classification where special fitness for the higher post was the main factor considpml. For instance , , in" last year's classification No. S3 in Grade 7, 1910, was promoted to Grade G, and Nos.Gl and 65' from Grado 8 to Grade ", passing over a number of other moinbpr-i who were under recommendation for promotion as statioiimastprs or clerks, because those enumerated had valuable rxperiencp and proved ability in the matter of train running. Similarly, No. 70, a member of the luconioiirc branch, and Nos. 76, 77, and 78, members of the maintenance branch, had been promoted on account of efficiency and suitability. To none of the promotions mentioned had exception bfen taken. The questions in connect ion with tho appeal had been fought out before both Appeal Boards nt various times siace the introduction of the Classification Act. and every time the board had dismissed the appeal, holding that the action of the Department in promoting the liest qualified and most suitable men to fill the positions vflcant at Hip timp was right. The clear intention of the Act wns'to givo the permanent bead r.f !he Department the right to spied for Hi" various nositions i;i the service the members wlio, in h\< oninion, pos.-esfed thp nccessnry qualifications; and it was obvious that men who had received a purely traffic branch training could not possess His essential qualifications for vacancies requiring a spechl knowledge of the locomotive and maintenance branches. A suggestion that, the head of the Denartment hud not the power of free selection in making promotions wa« (anVmouut fi saying that thp administration of tliß Tiailwav Department w.is to bp placed in the hands of Hip staff, and not in those of the admini>tratire officers. "A Very Important Case," Dr. M'Artluir said that the r.i?i> was a very important one, which required a well-considered judgment. A hasty decision was not desirable. The board proposal to adjourn th? matter so that he could go thoroughly through the Act and ascertain the powers of the superintendent in such affairs. The case was adjourned sine die. SECOND CASE. CADET WHO DID NOT STUDY. Alfred John M'Fherson, a cadet, nppeal«l against the withholding of his annual increase. It had been held backon the ground that he had not qualified in telegraphy. The appellant advanced the nlea (hat his hours of work handicapped him in studying for his examination. Dr. .M'Arthur remarked that the contention was that, because the. appellmt had to work S or 9 hours a day. lie \v."s unduly handicapped. This "id.-.-i !, e ridiculed at length. Oiip of his ivmai!-* was Hint any man worth his salt h.ui studied under worse conditions. Tlii- appeal was dismissed. THIRD CASE. ABSENCE TIIROrOH 11.1.-HEAI.TH. Williuin Keith OKN appealed against (lie witlilioldini; tf hi- annual inc-rcasp for four months, owinj; to his absence from work on account of Hl-heullh. ■ Mr. Davidson said that to j- ( .| (he j,,. eiwi.-p Olds li'.ul lo nave dune l> months' efficient service immediately previously, eight iiionlh' , service ciiuld not ln> counted as twelve miintlis' efficient service. The board reserved its decision. FOURTH CASE. ' An nnnenl wa? made by George Thoman Bonencld. of Wangamii, against Hie withholding of his annual increment of salary for nine months, nins months being tho period during which ha nway from work owir.jf to nn accident suMnincd outside hi- work. In this caso Mi. G. (J. Leo gat oo the

bonrd in (lie place of Mr. M'K'enzie. The iippi-nl was dismissed. SINGULAR THING. MAN'S WITNJ'SSIS BLOCKED. John Cliccsinaii, signal and interlccl;ing inspector, Wvllinglon, iippL-nlt-ilaßainsl his not l)piiii» pniuiolcd from (irnde 7 lo d'radn. (i. Kir-t Division, on April 1, 1011. I'or this can' Mr. D. M'Knme (,ecoii(l iliviuiiin) replaced Mr. il. Lee on (lipBt'iich. The "l-ievaiirp, i( npppnrpil. liail ;irU?n bocniiip appellant (.'hcpsman cunsidcrcil that 111- liail bi-on iinjirniii'flv Mipi'ivpil.'d. His viKty was romliirlpil l>y "Mr. \\. Donnelly, of Wanganui. Utifiii-p going mi with (he rasp. Mr. Ui'imehy vaitl that the Dcpartmenl Inwl lieen notified th-il Mcsh-. .1. Uiirnctl (chief engineer) and IT. .1. Wynne's (signal and electrical engineer) would Ijc required ;is \vftiio=-rs but the Department Imd not allowed them to attend the Court. The Department lind asked who wnuld bo needed to give evidence, had hern advised, and had then said that, they regretted that they could not arrange for tin , attendance of the** , officers. Mr. l>nneliy thought that an pxplannrion was due. Tho only reason which he could imagine for such conduct was that Hip Uciiartiiicnr framl that ile.--sr.-. JlurnoU r.iitl Wynne's evidpnrn would bo very favourable- to Hip appellant, and, nlsn. that it would not reflect credit on the methods of the Department in flioir dealing with The retusal was unfair. .. The Departiiienfs roprotentative, Mr. Davidson, said that the Department was (jiiite prepared to admit anything that Messrs. Burnett and Wynne might say in the appellant's favour. Mr. Donnelly retorted that their evidence on various points was needed. A discussion between Dr. M'Arthur and Mr. Davidson nn the merits of tho appeal occupied some time, Mr. Davidson maintaining that everything had boon dono in order, and Dr. M'Arthur plying him freely with questions. After a consultation with, the other members of the board, Dr. M'Arthur asked Mr. Dennehy what witnes.-es ho wished (o call. Mr. Dennehy: "Well, I am fighting for a principle " Dr. M'Arthur: " Tvant to know who you want to call?" Mr. Dennehy: "Messrs. Burnett and Wynne. . . . T'hp witnesses are material to Mr. ■ Cheesor.ian." Dr. M'Arthur: Well, I think wp ought to hear the witnesses, and also consider the law." Mr. Davidson contended that calling tliow men would he "settiiiß them up against their superior officer." The case was adjourned sine die.