RAILWAY BOARD

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 180, 25 April 1919, Page 5

RAILWAY BOARD

APPEALS HEARD LAMBTON BOOKING CLERK'S CASE

A sitting of the Railway Appeal Board, was held yesterday morning in tho Accountants' Hall, Johnston Street.-Messrs. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M. (chairman), M. Lee. and A. W. H.utchiugs comprised tho hoard. Mr. J. Macdonald (chief accountant) appeared for the Railway Department, and Mr. M. J. Mack (secretary of tho Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants) for the appellants. Alfred Navlor Longton, at present chief booking clerk at the Lambton Station, appealed against being superseded hv four others, and claimed that lie should, havo been promoted. Mr. Mack contended that the burden 'of proof was with the Department. The appeal was in the nature of a rehearing of the case. No investigation had taken place, nnd the appellant had had no opopporhmity of being represented by counsel, and they did not know what were tlie charges or reasons for not recommending the appellant's promotion. I'or the Department, Mr. J. Macdonald said it was not a rehearing, but an appeal.. Longton wn.s notified in accordance with the regulations that he had not been recommended for promotion. and it was stated that his conduct was not such as to warrant his promotion. Specific instances had been given that the appellant was lacking in Hie senso of discipline, arid the appellant could not plead ignorance of the reasons wiiV he was not recommended for promotion. . Mr. Mack stated that there were simply a number of assertions. To say . that the man's conduct did not warrant promotion; was a. mere assertion. There was no proof of miscondiict. The chairman 6tated that if the Department was prepared to confine itself to evidence in relation to the specific charges, then there was no reason why the appellant should not reply to them. This was agreed to, nnd the appellant gave evidence.

Lnngton tsaid fie had been six years in Wellington, and for eighteen months slntionniaster at Trent ham. Ho had been complimented by the military officers and also by the General Manager (Mr. Hiley) for his work at Trentham. Up to the present, his annual increments had never been questioned, and he had never been punished for misconduct. Ho was accused of pot attending to tho telephone on a certain day. He explained that it was a raco day, and they were all very busy. The traffic office tried to communicate with the office, but the receiver was down, and therefore there was no connection. The traffic office sent <i clerk round to see what was the matter, and found the .receiver us stated. The receiver had fallen from the holder becauso tho latter had spread. That explanation was given to him, and he sent it along. Faults with tho telephono had flinco beon noted. Tho Department held him responsible for tho staff's attention to the telephoned With respect to the availability of tickets, he received instructions to strike out tho period of availability from certain tickets before issue. Tho matter was discussed with the stationmastor, who made certain suggestions, and they went through (he whole matter. They agreed to a certain course of procedure, and this was carried out, although it took a considerable time. He explained the difficulties with respect to the . issue of leave tickets to soldiers, in. respect to which there was a complaint. He was busy on the preparation of these tickets until 10 p.ni., and the following day (a race day) be was at the office at fi.3o a.m.. and was kept very busy. He forto apply for a pass to go out and deliver the soldiers' ticket?, but later lie applied to the traffic offico for -a pass. He rang up tho office, and was told that the tickets had to be sent out to. tho 'officer in charge at Trentham. He replied over the telephone that the position was apparently not understood, and asked to be allowed to explain-tho mat--teivtp, Mr. ; Inncs: Tiro-; latter'declined, to speak to him, and sent word tiint tho tickets had to be sent to the officer in charge. Another officer froiii the traffic office came to the station, and the position was explained to him. He promised to find out -what was to be done and let the appellant know. Longlon did not get any information, and as the train was aljput to start he took tho tickets and ,£ls in silver for chango and boarded the train. lie-asked to bo informed along the line whother ho was to issue tickets or not, and, if not, lie would take his half-holiday,' which was due, 'and hand over the tickets to the officer iu charge. * Ho handed the tickets, over to the officer. He paid his own fare out, and all that lie did on tlirit occasion was in the interests of tho Department. He was charged with showing nn insubordinate spirit with respect to tho issue of tipkefs to Mr. Bevan,. the traffic manager. .It was the first day of the races, and Mr. Bevan applied three times for tickets, and secured in all nine tickets. On the second day Mi'. Bevan again ftpplied for two tickets, lie camo round to tho back of the counter for them. Witnoss said to him: "I suppose you know you are breaking tho rules. Mr. Bevan," He said: "What rules?" Witness replied that in the first place lie had over-issued the number of tickets, and in tho second place in coming round, the ticket-counter for tickets. Mr. Bevan said that he was the traffic manager, and that witness should do as he was told. ■ Witness told Bevan that had he (witness) "been busy at the \ ticket-window he would not hare given him tho tickets there. "Then," replied Mr. Bevan, "in that case I would have suspended you," Witness was subsequently taken into tho traffic manager's offico and asked two questions with respect to (he tickets, to which ho replied. Later on, witness wrote to the stationmaster (Mr. Symons) expressing regret for what ho 6aid to Mr. Bevan, and the latter wrote to witness, stating that as he had apologised and expressed regret no further action would be taken in the matter, and now it was being submitted as a reason for denying him promotion.

| The witness was cvoss-oxamincd at some length by Mr. Macdonald. . He stated that ho did not go to Trenthnm with the concession tickets in defiance, of his instructions. It was the best thing tliat he could do at tlio time. He had no bag in which to .send the loose money, and there was the question as to who was to issue the tickets and 'he responsibility for any error that might have occurred. He thought tho district traffic manager had a right in his < fflcial capacity lo come behind the counter of the ticket office, but on this occasion he was breaking the by-laws in reapeot to the privacy of the ticket office. Witness, however, thought so, and although he might bo wrong he would have told the General .Manager what he s'aid to Mr. Bevali. When he sent in his apology to the stationmaster he had been threatened with suspension. Mr. Bevan had spoken kindly to him when interviewing him, and perhaps that had something to do with bis pending in the apology. Case for the Department. Mr. J. Bevan. district traffic mannjjqr, said he reviewed the staff for promotion, and came, to an adverse opinion in respect to tho appellant, tho grounds for which were set out in a letter to the appellant. With respect to the telephone incident, he was of opinion that the telephone was deliberately disconnected. In .referenco to the i-.jmniunicatio.ns 6ent by the appellant to the stationmaster, witness warned him that (lie tone of the letters was insubordinate, and advised him that if that continued his career in the service would be affected. The appellant promised to watch himself and endeavour to avoid jiving offence. Willi respect to the soldiers' tickets, tho appellant had distinct ii structions to send tho tickets out, ami ho deliberately disregarded those instructions, which were clearly stated to him. and were sent by a superior officer. If he had any doubt on tho matter he should have communicated with the stationmaster. With reference to the issue of tickels to witness, he said that ho had an urgont request for two tickets, and he went inside the ticket office to get them. This was after' they had closed down on the issue. On ■race days tho issue of tickets. was limited, because they did not wish lo take out more 'people than they could bring back. He (tho witness) rnado.. tho restriction, and it was within' his power to cancel the restriction. Witness then referred to

the remarks of the appellant, which-Mr. Benin said wero iiisuoordinate. Ho (witness) mentioned tlie matter to the stationmaster, and later tho appellant wroto a letter of apology. The apology was ncknowlcdged, and the appellant was told that nothing further would bo done in tho matter, hut that the incident would be recorded against him. Witness camo to the conclusion that' tho appellant had so little control of himself that it would lie impossible for him to control others. Sir. Bovan said, he could not take tlio responsibility of recommending the appelant for promotion. Continuing, Mr. Devau said that lie had not liiet miother man in the service .with the same peculiar temperament as the appellant.' Longton, said the witness in crossexamination, was not an efficient ofat in sorao respects, although his mistakes were not sufficiently serious to warrant reduction in status. This concluded the .case, and tlio board intimated that it would consider its decision.

Permanent Way Inspector. The next appeal hoard was that of Cornelius O'Loary, pennaueut way inspector, Aramoho. _ The Ijoard io hear this comprised Mr. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.SL. (chairman), Sir. A. W. Hutchings (first division), and -Air. J. L. Ciihrchouse (second division). Sir. C. I'. Ryan appeared for 'the appelkuit and Mr.-J. Macdouald for the Department. Sir. Macdouald said that this case was different from the others heaVd 'by tho board, because the person (Osborne) against whom Mr. O'Leary was appealing as having superseded him was one of several appellants who appeared befol'o tlio board last year with Sir. O'Leary against being superseded. Three men'were put in front of O'Leary and Osborne, and the appeal of the latter was upheld. The (nullifications of the five men were under review by tho board, and it was decided that O'Leary was not as well qualified as the three promoted,' and dismissed O'Leaiy's appeal. In consequence of tho decision of the board in respect to Osborne the latter was restored to his original position and promoted, and it was against that promotion that the appeal was made. Ho submitted that' O'Learv's appeal that Osborne had superseded him could 'hardly bo hoard,"because ho was placed in that position on! tlio decision of tlio board, and the appeal was in effect against the board's-decision. Sir. Ryan said that wlion tho appeals were heard O'Leary hiid eo appeal against Osboruc. I] is view was that section GO of tho Act gave'to the members of the division wide powers" of appeal, and O'Learv had the right to appeal. The appeal involved a principle that was of imp&rtanco to everyone in the .division. After considering tho point tlio chairman announced that the right of appeal was given -under section GO. The-appel-lant appealed on tho ground that, Osborne had been placed on the list ahead of-him; then the question arose as to how Osborne was nlaced there. Was it by any superior officer? "Was it. in consequence •of what was done by any superior officer? No, he was not promoted through any action of a superior officerhe was promoted on the finding of the Appeal Board and there could bo no appeal. That was how the matter presented itself 'to the board, but as it was a legal matter the chairman suggested that both parties should take legal advico and submit the advico to the board. Oil that understanding the case was adjourned.

Loco. Foreman's Appeal. 1 M. Guthrie, loco, foreman, Palmerston North, appealed ag'ainst -being superseded by two others (M'Neilly and_ Cameron). The board was the samo aa in tho previous case, except that Mr. J. Smytlie took the place of Mr. Churcliouse. Mr. V. E. J. Stanley appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Macdonald appeared for tlio Department. At tho outset 'Mr. Stanley raised the point that the appeal, had not been brought on within three months as provided in section G1 of the Act. .

Mr. Macdouald explained tho causo of tho delay, and, stated that it was not duo to any fault of the Department. The chairman stated that if the appellant insisted upon the point he would stand where ho was. If the appeal was not proceeded with it would be tantamount to withdrawing the appeal. The appellant coiild not win by default. • 'Mr. Stanley then. proceeded with 'the appeal,' ahd'"kaid (tlmtvGuthirie'was shr- 1 prised at finding that ho had been superseded by two men, for he had never been notified in any way why he had been superseded. Mr. Macdouald, in reply, stated that Guthrie was formerly locomotive foreman at Wellington, and his administration'in that position came under reviewby a board of inquiry as the result of several complaints. It was decided by that board that Guthrio was not equal to managing tho Wellington depot. The position was clearly explained to Guthrie by the Assistant-General Manager, and lie was transferred to the depot at Palmerston North, which was of less importance than ■■Wellington. Ho was not subjected to any reduction in pay,, for' it was recognised that ho was.an old servant and was nearing the time to claim his pension, and the General Manager was reluctant to record anything against him. Guthrie could not plead ignoranco on the matter. ' ■, Ernest E. Gillon, locomotive engineer at llead Office, .said he was a member of the Board of Inquiry which dealt, with tho charges brought,against Guthrie. Hhe board decided that Guthrio was to blame in practically all cases. On the finding of that board Guthrie was transferred to Palmerston North, and M'Neilly. the foreman there, transferred to Wellington. Tho responsibility at Palmerston North was not nearly so great. Witness considered M'Neilly was' a better officer than Guthrie., He knew Mr. Cameron, who was the other officer | appealed against. Guthrie could.not be compared with Cameron. He would not take the responsibility of placing Guthrie in charge of the Wellington denot because he' did not think the.man was oapable of running the depot. Guthrie's main failing was that he 'did not know the work of the defxjt and did not take sufficient interest in the work to know what was going on. He left everything to his subordinates. . The witness was cross-examined at great length. • . Mr. S. 11.I 1 . Evans, locomotive engineer, Weillugton Division, was the next witness. his evidence being nracti.ially on the' lines of that given by Mr. GYilon. At this stage the board adjourned until this morning.