THE RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1802, 15 July 1913, Page 5

THE RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

9 ■ SHUNTER'S SOBRIETY. DR. M'ART-HUR ON THE FINDING. Tho North Mand Railway Appeal Board met yesterday morning. Dr. M'Arthur presided. Tho assessors wero: Messrs, C, P. Ifyan and I). Dwycr. Hubert Frederick Michael Carr, shunter, of Wellington, appealed against dismissal. The grounds of dismissal wero 1 absenting himself from duty without leave and beiijg under tho influenco of liquor whilst on duty. Mr, J, Mack appearcd for the appellant and Mr. H, Davidson represented thp Department. Mr. Mack stated that early on tho evening of May 3 Carr received permission to cease work. Ho admitted that, during the time he was off duty, ho had three drinks, but ho contended that, being "off' 1 at tho time, lie was not culpable in this resfwet. May 3 was a Saturday and on tho following Monday ho was called upon tq make a statement. Other persons wero' also called upon to make statements, but Carr was not present when theso statements wero put in. He subsequently got notice of suspension from duty, and immediately lodged an appeal against his suspension and was called upon to attend an inquiry. Appellant did not wish to attend this inquiry, but tho Department. insisted, and Carr (who was refuted an advocate) subsequently attended. Mr. Davidson remarked that tho maf* ,n /?' as l ? no of discipline. The District traffic Manager had received a report from a responsible porsou, aiid had subset quontly suspended tho appellant. was nothing in tho Act dealing with disciplinary matters (e.g., allowing representation of counsel), but a person had a right to bo represented on the Appeal Beard. Goods Foreman's Evidence, James M'Farlano Williamson, goodt foreman, stated ,that at 11 o'clock on tho night of May 3 he saw Carr in tho yard, and he then "looked queer." Witness gavo him some instructions with respect to taking an ongino out of tho shod, which Carr carried out. Shunter llhomas had told witness that he had had to toll appellant to get out of (ho way of an approaching engine, "or ho would bo getting killed.' Later in tho night •witness saw that Carr was under tho influenco of liquor, and he told him that he had' better go homo. A Witness Warned. '>£££• 1 Sliunter Thomas gavo evidence to tllo effect that ho saw appellant on tho night in question, and jt did not appear to him that anything was wrong with Carr, Witness began,.to. liesitate somewhat when being questioned by Mr. Davidson, who thereupon romarkod: "I 'warn you, Thomas. You liavo mado statoments on oath at •an inquiry, which are inconsistent with those which you are making to-day." His Worship (to witness): Tho way you are giving your evidenco gives me the opinion that you ars "shunting. - ' .Tho appellant thon gavo evidenco. lie stated that ho had told Foreman Williamson that ho was going off duty at about 9.80 p.m., and tho foreman repliod, "All right." Appellant also 6tated that Witliamson did not tell him that ho "had" bolter get away home." Other witnesses gavo evidence as to seeing the appellant on May 3, looking "rather queer," but others stated that they noticed nothing unusual. Dr. M'Arthur Dissents from the Finding. The following finding was handed in Uyi Messrs. C. P. Ryan and D. Dwyer "Wo, tho cloctivo members of tho North Island Railway Appeal Board, having carefully considered tho evidence, are or opinion (a) that thero is a doubt as to whether Carr was or was not hooked oil duty at 9.45 p.m. on Saturday, May 3; (b) whether Carr was or Was not under tho influence of liquor. Under those circumstances, wo consider, that appellant should bo given tho benefit of tho doubt, and recommend that ho bo reinstated aa shunter with loss of pay during tho sua* pc-nsion." Dr. M'Arthur, chairman, found:—"l respectfully dissent from tho abovn. inasmuch lis I am of opinion (a) that appellant absented himself from, duty; (b) that ho returned to duty under tho influence of liquor," Tho findings are to bo transmitted te tho Minister for Railways. Another Appeal. In tho matter of the appeal of Win. Nohlo, clerk of Wellington, against rooeiving a lesser annual salary on pro- ; motion from Division II to Division J than another member similarly promoted, thp Appeal Board reported that they yver# of opinion that tho appeal could • not stantf. Mr. M. Leo represented the appellant, and Sir. H. Davidson represented tho Department.