RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 148, 12 March 1918, Page 6

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

SITTING IN "WELLINGTON. A sitting of the North Island Railway Appeal Board was hold in Wel- ' lington yesterday. Mr. H. AV. Bishop, S.M., presided, and tho assessors were Messrs. AV. J. Hutchings (First Division) and M'Konzie (Second Division). Mr. J. Mncdonald (Chief Accountant) represented the Department.' John Valentine, car and wagon inspector .(Mr. V. Stanley) appealed against having been superseded by five ■ other men. . He stated that he had been in his present position at AA'anganui since 1914. He was 57 years of age, arid had thirty-two years' service. He had twenty-four men under him, and did not understand why he had been passed over for promotion.'While workshops foreman at Whangarei he had been complimented by the General Manager. Ho had not applied for the transfer from Whangarei to ! Wangariui. To Mr. Macdonald: While at Wha- ' ngarei .ho Teceived, in 1913, a letter . from' the Chief, Mechanical Engineer, j complaining of the number of engino , failures on tho section, and he was ; told that his supervision must be more ( effective. A complaint of a similar . nature was made in 1912, .and he was , also told that he must use more tact ] with his staff: In 1914 ho was repri- ] mantled by the General Manager for . ■using improper language to his staff. ;; In answer to -Mr. 'Stanley, witness ' said that the engine failures complain- ' ed, of were due to tho shortage of engine power on the section. After hearing evidence the board re- ' served its decision. ' Depot Cliargcman .Arthur B. Feasey, ; stationed at Paekakariki. appealed J from his reduction from tho rank of ] assisting locomotive foreman at Thorn- ! don. The board comprised Messrs. 1 H. W. Bishop (chairman), A. W. : Hutchings (First Division representa- 1 tivo), and W. Smythe (Second Division ' representative). Air. W. A. Macdon- i aid appeared for the Department, and 1 Mr. AV. M'Arloy for the appellant. ( Mr. G. A. Pearson, Assistant Chief ' Mechanical Engineer, stated that ap- £ pcllant had given satisfaction as re- i lioving foreman at AVanganui, as as- ) •sistant locomotive foreman at Wei- i lington, and as depot chargeman at ; Taihape. , Sydney 0. Ewan, locomotive engin- i ecr, Pctone, also gavo evidence as to i appellant's qualifications for promo- ( tion. James M'Neeley, locomotive | Joremnn, also said appellant had work- , ed under him and given every satisfaction. ] Appellant, in ovidence, said he had , been blamed in consequence of com- ! plaints about a-certain ash-pit. He j had not considered himself in charge nf this pit. On March 24 last, when bo came on duty at Thorndon, he had been told by the locomotive foreman that there was no engine to draw a certain train, and that tho foreman did not know where fin engino could be obtained. Witness made inquiries, and found two' engines of the same class, both laid up for small repairs. He suggested a transfer of parts, in j order to make one engine available for j ,use, and this was done. But the en- \ gine had been washed out, and stearic , was not availablo sodn enousrh to avoia delaying the tram. Tf his predeees- , For on duty had taken action whon the lack of an engine was first discov- ' ered, thern would have been no difficulty. The locomotive foreman had 1 been to blame for the delay. The delay of another train had not been due ' to appellant leavirn; for his tea with- J ont making adequate arrangements for : the engine. Fe had bolicred that tho ■ foreman had charge. _ c Appellant was cross-examined, at c length by Mr. Macdonald. who suggested that , appellant ..had fn ; led to t.akn 1 due care to have the engines ready on j time. _ _ ' " The board reserved its decision. '