RAILWAY APPEALS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1424, 26 April 1912, Page 8

RAILWAY APPEALS.

PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION, REGULATION'S CHITICISED. Ycs'erday morning tlio XorEK Island Kailwny Appeal Board delivered its decisions in llic iippral cn.-cs nf John C'koeseman, a .-ijinnl mid urcrlookiiuj inspector, ami .1. Gordon, an inspector of permanent way. (.•|u;i'«..|iinii hail appealed ;ipiuii>t ins po.-itimi un Ihe claudication hst, ami linnion appealed against his Joins superseded on tne classification \U lor 15)11. i J)|, 'i M '-\ rl }""' P l - chairman of the boa.. , said thai tip appeal of Cheeseman' ha, been heiil. 11,,. evidence had been called by the Department to show that the appellant was not competent (o fulfil the duties ot tlio.-e who superseded him. Uis Mipenor oflicurs had shown that he had been a most elhcient and competeut officer in Ins work, and the board was of opinion that it would be very difficult to find another who could carry out as satisaetorily as he had done the duties allotted to him. Nothing had been adduced Jo show that those who had superseded mm wero more competent than he might liavo been to.perform the duties to which they had been appointed. Iu the board's opinion the appellant was fullv entitled to the advance in grado which he sought. In tiordon s case, said the chairman, no evidence had been called by the Department to show that the appellant was not competent, to fulfil the,duties of the one who superseded him. Evidence had been given by appellant's superior officers to show that he was a competent and an efficient officer in the work which he was doing. The board upheld the appeal. JJr. M Arthur then observed that there appeared to be an inconsistency in the opinion ho had expressed in Chccsenian's case and his opinion in Thomson's case, dealt with on the previous day. In ihomsoii s case he had decided against the appellant. Thomson's case, however, was one of a rise in a"gra.do in which he already was, not a matter of a rise from one grade to another. Mr. J. Davidson (the Pailway Departments representative): "Thomson's was from one grade to another." Dr. M'Arthur: "1 have reconsidered the point which I took in Thomson's case, and I am very. much afraid now that Kegulahon 40 is ultra vires, because Section 60 virtually gives every man the right of appeal from his superior officer." The high superior officer was, of course, the General Manager, and he could not sm how the General Manager could withhold his certificate. The General Manager was .in this position: If a certificate was given a. man was entitled to increase in pay or grade; if a certificate was refused, * the General Manager was above and beyond the regulation*, a position which, I think, was never contemplated by the Act. Of course, the matter was still in the -honds of the Minister, who had power to veto the decision of the board. The best thing would be a revision of the regulations to bring them something like into lino with the spirit of .the Act." Mr. Davidson said that it had been stated in the finding of the. board that tho Department had not adduced any evidence to show that Cheeseman could not do tho work of the two men who superseded him. It was quite unnecessary for tho Department to do so, because the work was altogether different. Cheeseman did not claim to do their work. Dr. M'Arthur: "Is the Department going to select what shall be the work of the™ men?" Mr. David?™: "Thero is no similarity in tho work of tho different men." Dr. M'Arthur: "There must be. There is similarity of pay." Mr. Davidson: "Their work is entirely different in every possible way." Dr. M'Arthur: "Here are men in a certain grado wliow salaries arc about the same. No one will deny that Checieman has been a, most excellent man." Mr. Davidson said' that it could not l,s> contended that Cheeseinan's work compared with tho work of a stationmaster who had tho responsibility of a station like Lyttclton, Dr." IP Arthur: "I don't agree with you there. Here's a man who hns put down tho wholo of tho inter-locking system. I think the safety of the people of the wholo Dominion is of greater importance than tho safely of tho people of Lytlelton from tho point of view of responsibility." Mr. Davidson thought the board had misapprehended tho point when it said that the Department did not adduce evidence. The cases wcro quito distinct. Dr. M'Arthur said that his answer was that he did not think the Department had any right to make the distinctions. Mr. Davidson said that the finding of tho board seemed to imply that the duties of the men were interchangeable. Dr. M'Arthur: "Oh, no. I .do not think they may bo interchangeable. What 1 say is tliat it should not be against a man because he has been given a certain class of work, and that ho should not, in consequence, be refused promotion to a higher grade. However, I don't think we can get into an argument of this kind. I think this should be an argument for a deputation which waits on the Minister, or something of that kind."