TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 8, 4 October 1917, Page 9

TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

CONDUCTOR AKD CASH

REINSTATEMENT SUGGESTED

The Tramway Appeal Board eat yesterday afternoon to deliver its decision ou tho appeal lodged b,y Philip Augustus Bank, ex-trainway conductor. Mr. W. G. Hiddell, S.AI., presided, and with him were Messrs. T. Honayne (representing tho respondent council) and Horßort 'J'omlinspu (representing liho Tramway Union).' Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for thfi appellant, and Mr. John O'Shea, City Solicitor, for the respondents. Tho appellunt joined the tramway 'service- as conductor on February U. I'-'l7. pn May 21 there was a ihortago in his cash amounting to £1 10s. Gd., and ho maintained that ho was. not responsible for the shortage. As a result of two inquiries a proposal'was mado to tho appollant that he should pay =C 1 towards the amoitut of the shortage, which he refused to do, and was accordingly dismissed. At the hearing it was stated that there was no suggestion of dishonvsly on the part of tho appellant. -Mr. Riddell, who delivered the decision of the board, stated that, the boardhad considered tho evidence very carefully. There wero other questions besides the actual appeal involved, one being tho system of conductors paying in their cash. It was clear from the evidence that tho system followed by the tramway officials and the conductors was not, in "the opinion of tho board, carried out thoroughly. With, regard to tho ap- ( peal, it was common ground that all concerned were acting honestly, and there was no direct evidence as to how tho deficiency arose, whether before tho conductor's cash-box was placed m the pay-ing-in machine or after it was go placed. The board had'thereto™ to take the probabilities into consideration. Banks had admitted that ten minutes were allowed conductors to make up their ensh, and that he did not take advantage of that concession, but made up hie cash in the car. The boaris decision in the matter was not unanimous. Hβ (the chairman) and Mr. Ronayne wero of opinion that the loss occurred before the cashbox was placed in tho payinff-in machine. ■ Mr. Tonihneon s opinion was that aa there was some doubt on the point the appellant should «et the benefit of the doubt: The appeal would be dismissed, but as Banlte had a Rood record the board recommended that he should be reinstated on payment ot the amount (.£1) which Mr. Morton laid' stipulated should be paid. It was tho unanimous opinion' of the board that the rules referred to in the evidence as to conductors making up their cash should bo enforced, and the returns should not bo made up in the care, but in the; proper places. Also, as to the plaoing of tiie cash-boxes in the inaohine, the opening of the machine, the packing of tho boxes in hampers, the opening of the boxes, and tho counting of the cash should all be done in the presence of officials.' Shortages and surpluses should be posted up once a week, and not once a fortnight, and in tho case of anv considerable shortage the conductor concerned should' be immediately notified, inquiries should be mado and statements should be committed to writing and eignod by those making them. The conductors were/no doubt annoyed by these shortages, but there wrs a fair amount of carolcssness displayed by conductors in makincr up their returns. \bout twenty or thirty of them made up their returns without mistakes, and an analysis went to show that' sixty conductors out of 180 did not make more than a shilling a week of error. Fhero must be. carelessness, and all were liable to ninkfil mistakes, but the conductors should be compelled to niiliso the time allowed for making up their -. cMirnu m order to reduce tho percentage of error.