RAILWAY APPEALS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2498, 26 June 1915, Page 14

RAILWAY APPEALS

ENGINEERS* CASE CONTROL OF OHAKUNE DISTRICT. A sitting of the Railway Appeal Board was held in the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The first case was an adjourned South Islajid one, taken before the South Island Board, consisting of Messrs. W. R. Hazeldon, S.M. (Chairman), and J. P. Matheson, First Division, and R. J. Dash, Second Division Maintenance. The appellant was John M'Nair, assistant engineer, Dunedin, who appealed from being superseded by Mr. C. A. Jeffries, who was promoted to the position of District Engineer, at Oliakune. Mr. H. W. M'vtlly, Chief Clerk of the Railway Department, appeared for the defendant, and Mr. J. S. M'Pherson for the appellant. Alfred James M'Credie, District Engineer, Christchurch, gave evidence that appellant was his assistant ongineer at Invercargill. He did not display any outstanding ability as regards the working of railways, hut appeared to shine more in theory than in practice. The Cl.ief Engineer had made a comparison between the qualifications of Mr. Jefries and the appellant. Witness had recommended that appsllant was still fit for the position he was occupying, but did not recommend him for a higher position. He had recommended him for tho position of location engineer, but did not know whether that was going to lead to promotion. In his opinion the qualifications for carrying out maintenance were the higher. '.To Mr. M'Pherson witness said that ho had no doubt appellant could do all tho duties asked of him. but it was a question of deg.-ee of ability. He could not point to practical instances where appellant had not carried out his work in accordance with the methods of the Department. He had arrived at his conclusions as to Mr. M'Nair's qualifications by his general observations. Witness was prepared to say that appellant had carried out his duties_ with average satisfaction to him. Witness did not know appellant before he joined the Invercargill staff in 1909, and he was not aware of what, examinations he had passed. He was c-ware, however, of what examinations he had not since passed. He could not say if applicant had sat for them. Witness had never advised appelant that he could riot recommend him for promotion. He did not consider Section il of the regulations compelled him to do so, as he had never made an adverse report on appellant. To-Mr. M'Villy: Appellant was satisfactory under instruction, but witness would not have been prepared to let him carry out work altogether on his own initiative. He had recommended him for two advances in his own grade. Robert West Holmes, Engineer-in-Cbief of the Public Works Department, called by appellant's representative, said that he had known Mr. M'Nair since 1901, when he joined the Public Works Department as a cadet. Witness detailed the work dono by appellant in the Department. Ho resigned in 1906 to join the services of the Manawatu Railway Company. Witness was of opinion then that appellant would ultimately turn out to be a very valuable officer. He had not since had an opportunity of judging of his abilities. The principal officers of the Department were sorry to lose Mr. "M'Nair's services when he resigned in 1906. He got a good training ' for railway work while with tho Public Works Department, and the Department was in a position to give a general all-round engineering training, probably second to none in the world. Mr. M'Villy: Would'you put your opinion for his promotion, against that of the Chief Engineer of the Railway Department?" Mr. Holmes: Certainly not. Jnmes Marshbanks, Engineer for the Wellington Harbour Board, and Chief Engineer in 1906 for the Manawatu Rnilwav Co., said that appellant was selected in 1.906 out of «bout_ 40 applicants for- the position of assistant engineer with the company. In reply to tho contentions raised, Mr. M'Villy said that in the opinion of the General Manager, backed up hv the head of the Department, Mr. Jofferies was the better qualified for the position at Ohaknne. Mr. M'Pherson said that they considered an error had been made in. promoting an officer under anpellant to the more important position. Decision was reserved.

Wagon Inspector's Appeal. The appeal of L. Paterson, ear and wagon inspector. CbristcliutT.il, against tho promotion of William Austin, workshops foreman, Newmarket, to the position of timber inspector in the stores branch, was continued, and Mr. M'Plipison, for appellant, contended that he was best qualified, for tlio position, as he thoroughly understood all matters concerning milling and timber. •Decision was reservedClerk's Lank of Promotion, The appeal of James Henry Wright, clerk, Wellington, against the refusal of the District Traffic Manager to recommend him for promotion, was heard before the North Island Board, consisting of Messrs. Hnzelaen, S.M. (Chairman). A. W. Hutchings, First Division, and D. Dwver, Second Division. Mr. ,T. Mac Donald appeared for the defendant, and-Mr. L. W. llanlon for the appellant. Andrew Duncan, District Traffic Manager, Auckland, said that ho cqnld not recommend appellant for promotion, for reasons stated. Evidence was taken at length, and decision was reserved. Engine-Driver's Case. Tho appeal of J. Hislop, engine-driver, Hastings, against the decision of his superior officer in not recommending him for promotion was part heard, and adjourned till 0 o'clock this morning.