RAILWAY APPEALS,

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1889, 18 October 1913, Page 14

RAILWAY APPEALS,

TWO CASES HEARD.

PORTER 4 HIS DRINK OF MILK,

The North Island Railway Appeal Board sat yesterday. The board comprised Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M. (chairman), and Messrs. C. P. Eyan and D. Dwyer (First and Second Divisions respectively). Tho first case dealt with was that of Joseph! Jervis, junior porter, who appealed against dismissal from the Parcels Office at Lambton Station for alleged theft. Mr. M. Lee appeared for tho appellant, and Mr. H. Davidson for tho Department. . , In a signed statement Jems admitted that ho took a cup of milk from a. can, and for that offence he had been dismissed. During his examination by Mr. Lee, ho said that he had had authority to tako milk, whenever die required it. In answer to a question as to how he got this permission to take the milk, he explained that when on night duty, ho used to put certain cans of milk in the parcels office for safety, and ill doing this he was obliging a certain milk firm. He had received the permission from Mr. ■Roberts, manager of a firm of milk vendors. On tho particular night with, which his case was concerned, he entered the parcels office merely for the purpose of obtaining milk. It was true, however, that he locked the door, and also that when the nightwntch'man called out to him he did not answer. To Mr. Davidson: He was not aware that in accepting any gratuity he was liable to dismissal. Bernard Roberts, manager of a milk firm, silted that lie had been surprised to hear of the dismissal. He had given appellant and other porters permission to tako milk. , Martin Lee, who had been in tno railway service for 23 years, testified m to appellant's honesty and good behaviour. Arthur Wm. Hutcliinga, assistant-srta-tionmaster at Lambton, 6tated during the course 0/ his evidence, 011 behalf of flie "Department, that several of tho milk vendors had been told that' if they wished to prive th>o railway porters milk they must give it to thein outside of the railway pronfisos. In Teply to a question asked by Mr. Davidson, witness stated th.it he knew of two instances of valuable goods beins stolen from tho Lambton Station, and tho Department * had been unable to find any traco of them % On the hand ho had held a very high, opinion of .Tervi.9 as a railway man, v Tho board found as follows:—(1) Appellant did not' enter the parc*b office with intent to r.ommit theft; (2) Although he tnok the milk, he did not do so with a guilty mind, but -under the imnrewion that ho had nernmsion to do eo; (3) Such taking of milk with permission, however, is not permitted by tine regulations; (■£) The appellant's action in locking tho door . . . might reasonably lead to suspicions o£ wrongdoing; (5) Under all the circumstances, the appeal will bo allowed, insofar as the appellant s dismissal is concerned, but it is recommended that he forfeit' all jwages which t would have accrued to him during tho timo ho • was suspended. DISCIPLINE. TFE & HIS OFFICER. Cloke, storemanat Thonidon Goods Station, appealod against dismissal, for what thie Department termed gross insubordination. Mr. Ix?e represented appellant and Mr. Davidson the Department. . ~ - In replv to Mr. Davidson, Mr. Lee said that he would accept tho evidence taken at the Departmental inquiry, subject to his right of examining the goods agent. 'Continuing, Mr. Leo said that lie was go-., in" to contend that while Cloke was insubordinate it was done under provocation. Appellant had returned from his annual leave on August 4, and was noticed 'bv Mr. Mellor, who thought that he was '"loafing." Cloke denied this, and j[r. Mellor asked him to go to the District Traffic Manager's office, but appellant refused, stating that he had not got a ."good run" there before After confirming his evidence at the Departmental inquiry. Cloke stated that when he was suspended he said to tlio goods agent: "You have got me out at last, and you have played your game very well, but, understand, I oomo back. Mr. Mellor replied: "If you come, I go! Witness contended that his superior had a "set" on him. Appellant had only been back at work 25 minutes when he was charged with "loafing." Alfred Hudson Mellor, goods agent at Thorndon, said that ho had seen appellant standing doing nothing, and nad told Mm that he was "loafing. Cloko then made some contemptuous remarks, and witness told him not to sneak to his superior like that. Witness had no desire to take extreme measures, and ho asked anpellant to accompany him to the Traffic Manager's office and have the matter settled. Cloke refused to do this, and ignored further questions put by witness. Later Cloke remarked that witness was detested by the whole staff and should be removed. After reviewing the evidence tho board found that Cloke had been guilty of insubordination, and they unanimously decided to dismiss tie appeal.