"RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 149, 13 March 1918, Page 6

"RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

j, ' ' YESTERDAY'S SITTINGS. The North Island Railway Appeal Hoard sat in Wellington yesterday to consider appeals from members of the service who consider themselves aggrieved by their treatment by the Department. Mr. JI. W. Bishop, S.M. (chairman of the board) presided, awl with him sat as assessors Mr. A. AY. Hutchings, representing the First Division, and Mr. W. J. Smythe, liresenting the Second Division. Mr. J. Mac Donald acted for the Department in all cases. Hearing of the appeal of , depot chargemaii, Arthur R Feasor, of l'ackakariki. was resumed. ' His appeal was against his reduction from the post of locomotive foreman at Thorndon to his present position. Mr. "W. M'Arley appeared for 'the r appellant. The hoard reserved decision. 11l the afternoon the board heard tho appeal of an inspector of permanent way, Thomas Henry Geraghty, of Wangauui. Mr. V. Stanley appeared us counsel for "the, appellant. Mr. J'. Churchouso sat as assessor for the Serorid Division.

The issue was similar to that in previous cases. The appellant claimed that he had been superseded by men who ought not to have been promoted before him. Appellant stated in evidence that bis district —Taraliaki—was a, bad one, and he had had no notification from the district engineer that he had not been {riving satisfaction in his work. Furthermore. the district engineer had told him that no adverse reports against him had been received. Evidence in support of appellant's claim was given ftv Mr. Cosh, district engineer at Wangamii. who said tint Geraghty was quite fit for promotion to the next grade. The case for the Department was that while there was nothing of importance against Geraghty, _t,he men wlio had received promotion over (loraghty's head were hotter men at tlteir~\v<'/rk. itlr. F. W. MaoLcan, chief engineer, slid that to promote men in order of senioritv would be to put a premium on mediocrity. The result' would inevitable be a serious loss of efficiency of the scrvice. The onlv fair method was to promote according to merit, but it was iiis earnest- wish to have due regard to length of service. . Re did not, f>onsirW Oprairhtv anything more than a "fair" insoeetor. Even had there been more promotions to .be made. Geraghtv wyuld cert-ninlv not have be»". one of those selected.

The cane wasJnconinlcte when the board adjourned for the day.