RAILWAY PROMOTIONS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2416, 23 March 1915, Page 9

RAILWAY PROMOTIONS

QUESTION OF GRADE j INSPECTOR OF PERMANENT WAY APPEALS A sitting of' the Railway Appeal Board was held at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. The constitution of the board was Messi'B. W. R. Haselden, S.M., chairiran, A. W. Hutchings, First Division, and D. Dwyer, A. Whisker, and J. Churchhouse, Second Division, alternating according to the department in which tho appellant was employed. The case of most interest to railwaymen was the appeal of J Warren, Inspector of Permanent AVay, Waipukurau, against being superceded in FD3 list, 1914.

Mr. J. Macdonald, for the Department, said that the appeal was on three grounds—(l) For having been superceded by 59 members, who were below him in D 3 list, 1913; (2) for having been reduced in status; (3) for having been debarred for future promotion in that there was a tag opposite his name, namely, "maximum for position." The Department pubmitted that the second and third grounds of tlia appeal were incorrect. He was not reduced in status, and he was not debarred from future promotion. Air. M. Dennehy, for appellant, said that the appellant was in grade 8, and claimed that ho should be in grade 7. He was pleased to hear Mr. Macdonald say that the tag after his name did not debaj him to promotion, which he had taken it to do.

James Burnett, Chief Engineer of Railways, gave evidence that for about ten years he had been acquainted with the appellant. He reviewed the staff, with the District Engineer, for the year beginning April 1, 1914. He considered the claims of appellant for promotion, and his recommendation waß to the effect that increase to £275 should be given, but not promotion to grade 7.. Witness considered all his service in the Department, as an inspector of permanent way. To Mr. M. Dennehy: Witness was aware that under , the Act appellant would get £275 on April 1. The review was: made in February. Mr. Dennehy pointed out that all tho men of grade 10 were advancing to ths maximum of grade 9, and l all of grade |9 advancing to the maximum of grade ; 8, but only 60 per cent, in Mr. War-> ren's grade had advanced, and 40 per cent, had remained in the same grade. He asked witness had lie considered that in the reclassification of the staff.

Witness replied lAat he could not say he fully realised "t.

Mr. Dennehy: You are aware in 1885 the maximum salary for an .inspector was 14s. to 17s. per day. Do you consider that the maximum of A grade should have been placed at that .amount in the new classification? • ■ Witness. No. i consider that relatively there should bo an iiicreaso. Since 1902 inspectors of permanent way have advanced to £800 a' year. Considering that, do you consider you were justified in making. that recommendation?—"l should not have made the.recommendation had I rot felt justified in making it." Are there not inspectors in tho next grade at £315, in a similar position to Sir. Warren?—"yes;"'.'. Further witness said that he would be considering the matter in the review of the staff within a few days. The tag opposite appellant's name would not lave any effect in. the review for 1910. Witness detailed. the duties of the appellant. He had a mileage of 93 miles, and 60 men under him, and when extra works were in progress there were under him 20 to 30 extra men. Witness did not care to make a comparison between an inspector of permanent way and a locomotive foreman. Mr. Hutchin'gs: Are there any inspectors in grade 7 with less service than the appellant? Witness: From memory, I think not.

On looking the matter up witness said that there was one. Personality and the extent of his responsibility _ were the factors witness considered in re-, commending Mr. Warren to a maximum of £275, and further the fact that all could not go up to the masimuin of grade 7 at once. ' To Mr. Haselden: He was aware that prior to the reclassification under the Act of 1913 the maximum of grade 8 was £275, and that under the fication the maximum was £260; also that a number, of officers still in grade 8 were receiving between £260 and. £275. He recognised that the apparent anomaly was ill consequence of the provisions of Section 49, Sub-section 3a, of the G.R. Act, 1908, which said that no salaries should be reduced as the result of He had this in mind when he reviewed Mr. Warren's position in 1914. He had been getting £265 on the D 3 for 1913, but it seemed to witness he was en-, titled to go to £275, although remaining on Grade 8. The highest salary at present for an inspector of permanent way was £315. Mr. Haselden: You will recommend him for an increase this year? Witness: I will consider him. I am not making any promise, but if he gets the fticrease he will go to Grade 7. Mr. .Haselden said that it appeared that increases could bo given, and yet men not put into the higher grade. That could be extended right to the top of tho service, and was contrary to the Act. Mr. Macdonald: That is not the intention of the Department at all. Mr. Haselden (to witness): Why didn't you recommend Mr. Warren to Grade 7 ?—I don't think I can give any other reasons than those I have given. How do you differentiate between one inspector and another?— Personality and responsibility have to do with it. You recommend him for an increased salary because he deserved it? "Yes." Why didn't you recommend him for a promotion in grade?—'Becau'se I did not think nil the inspectors should.be put in the one grade." How many are in Grade 7?—" Eight." And how many in Grade 8? — "Twenty-two." Have any of the inspectors below Mr. Warren m Grade 8 been advanced to Grade 7? —"No."

Have any other officers?—"A large number in other branches of the service." It was merely because ho considered there » sufficient number of inspectors in Grade 7, and he would have another opportunity of considering Mr. Warren's position the next year, that he did not recommend him to Grade 7.

Robt. M'Villy, Chief Clerk of the Ralway Department, gave evidence. He said that when the reclassification took place in 1913 it_ was found that a number of men remained in Grade 8 in excess of tho maximum salary of Grade 8. Mr. Haselden: Why were they not put automatically into Grade 7? . Witness replied that under the Act of 1912 the members in Grade 8 were entitled to advance by annual increments to £275. When tho Act of 1913 was passed the rights of all men then in Grade 8 to advance to tho maximum of £275 under the 1912 Act were preserved, subjeot to merit and good conduct. and their getting tho certificate of the General Manager. _ In other words, the Act of 1913 did not take away any rights tliev were entitled to undor the Act of 1912. The Act of 1.913 reduced the maximum of Grade 8 from £270 to £260. Mr. Haselden: If a man is at the top of his grade now can you give him ■aft Iwwi'fe nals-jv-without'mhUhk ..bim .in another gratis.

Mr. M'Villy: No, you can not. I Further, witness said that after tli<s A*,t of 1913 no automatic promotions from Grade 9 to Grade 8 were made. All promotions were the result of efficiency and good conduct. Appellant gave evidence that ho had had twenty-eight years' service, and had worked up from platelayer. He was sixty years of age. F. C. Widdup, District Engineer, said that appellant had given satisfaction in his work. He had signed < the recommendation of th® chief engineer. After counsel had addressed the board the chairman said that decision would be reserved. GOODS CLERK APPEALS. J. E. Lawrence, clerk, Wellington Goods Office, appealed against being superceded in the D 3 list, 1914. The position set out by Mr. J. Macdonald, representing the department, was that appellant was formerly a elerk in the employ of the Manawatu Railway Co. He was taken over with the rest of the staff in December, 1008, and was then receiving a salary of £135. His annual increments wont on till the year 1909, when he was receiving a salary of £150. He was then informed that his next increase would be dependent oil his qualifying in telegraphy, which was a nectssary qualification in the goods office. By the Act of 1913 special subgrades were instituted by which men getting a higher salary, except in special cases, took precedence Appellant, who was still in Grade 9, qualified in telegraphy oil April 7, 1914, and received a salary of £165, and he was appealing against several clerks taking precedence in D 3 list, who had got their increases on April 1. Mr. Haselden: Why didn't he qualify before March 31?

Mr. M. Dennehy, counsel for appellant, said that appellant sat for an examination on March 31, but unfortunately failed. He passed in sending on April 3, and receiving a few days later. Mr. Dennehy 6aid that when boys were taken on now they were sent to the learners' gallery, and thero qualified. In the case of Mr. Lawrence that was not so. He had to do his best after his ordinary duties, and with the facilities, which were not great, at Aromoho, where he was then stationed.

Mr. Macdonald said that there were instances where wen taken over in 1908 qualified in 1909.

Mr. Dennehy: Those men, the appellant tells me, were kept in Wellington and had better facilities.

Mr. Haßelden: My personal opinion la that appellant has no grounds of complaint. There must be a distinction between those who qualified on April 1 and those who did not qualify till a later date. It seems to me Mr. Lawrence received a good deal of consideration in being allowed to qualify on April 7 alter failing a week previously, and then to como on the list. Mr. Dennehy: Mr. Lawrence tells me his chief complaint is that the facilities were so bad at Aromoho that he did not get the opportunity to qualify. Had tho facilities been better he would have qualified sooner. He is anxious to put that on record. Appellant gave evidence to similar effect. Mr. Macdonald eaid that the application for Mr. Lawrence amounted practically to a claim for special treatment. On his own admission hu received notice that he would need to qualify in telegraphy before he would get his increase. Other men who wore taken ovor at the same time had qualified, and the Department's contention was that, if appellant had taken advantage of the facilities -provided at Wellington before his transference to Aromoho ho would have been nearly proficiont then. There were officers in the Department who had qualified in telegraphy who had never been in a gallery. The Department recognised that appellant's own laok of application was the cause of his failure to pass at an earlier date. Mr. Dennehy, in reply, said that those who came from the country were in an entirely different position from the cadets taken on now. They had speoial time and facilities to learn. Further, it was far more difficult, he was told, for one to qualify when he got on in age. Appellant had many times complained to lira about the conditions in' Wanganui. There was no principle involved in the case

The chairman said that the board would consider the whole matter. A CASE ADJOURNED. J. Hislop, driver, of Hastings, represented by Mr. P. D. Clerk,- appealed against the decision of the locomotive foreman at Napier not to recommend him for the position as depot chargeman at the annual review, for the reason that- he did not possess the tact and administrative qualification necessary to handle a number of men. Mr. Davies, foreman' at Napier, was unable to attend owing to illness, and counsel for the appellant said that it was absolutely essential for him to attend, as he had put in an adverse report, and his evidence was necessary. Under the circumstances he asked for an adjournment.

The case was accordingly ■ adjourned to a date to be fixed, and will probably be heard at Taibapo.