RAILWAYMAN'S APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 181, 26 April 1919, Page 3

RAILWAYMAN'S APPEAL

. BOARD RESERVES DECISION. The Railway Appeal Board has concluded the hearing of the appeal of M.' Guthrie, locomotive-foreman, of Palmerston North, against being superseded by two others (M'Neilly and Cameron). The board comprised Messrs. J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., A-. W. Hutchings_ (first division), and J. Smyths (second division). Mr. V. R, J.. Stanley appeared for the appellant - and 3fr. J. Macdonald (chief accountant) for the Department. Mr. R. Jl'Villy, Asaistant-Geueral Manager of the Railways, said that he knew the appellant, ajid remembered tho circumstances of complaints " against Guthrie's management of the. Wellington depot, and the inquiry that was held in connection with those charges. Witness said that he personally ' informed Guthrie, when the latter called to see the witness in respect of his transfer, of the reason for the . change. He desired to stay in Wellington, but was . informed that' it Was impossible' because of l.is mismanagement of the Wellington depot, and - witness knew 'personally that the General Manager also .spoke to Guthrie on the matter. It was at the discretion of the Department whether a man was' notified by letter or by word of mouth ol any change. Guthrie was an old officer, and out of consideration for Mm he was personally informed of tho position. Ono of Guthrie's faults was that lie was prone to \go into his office and have letters written on matters that could better be dealt with by word of mouth. No hope was held out to Guthrie that he would improve his position unless he made good when his claims for advancement would bo considered.. Quito recently the witness had a conversation with the retiring chief mechanical engineer as to whether Guthrio had made good in Palmerston North, and whether he could recommend him for promotion. The chief mechanical engineer replied, in the negative. When Guthrie was fant to Palmerston North he felt aggrieved, but there was no icduction in pay because at that time tho status of Thorndon was raised,., and Guthrie would ■ have been promoted to the position had he been, competent. Ho was, however, sent to Palmeretoii North, and-the locomotive foreman atPalmerston North was promoted to Wellington. Under cross-oxamination,, Mr. M'Villy said that Guthrio was told the contents of the findings of the committee of inquiry. Tho findings wero not actually read over to him, but he knew the contents. Mr. Guthrie was told that he was not oligiblo for promotion, and he was left in no doubt on that point. Matthew Guthrie, the appellant, said that, ho had been'in tho service fortV years last January, and had been in Palmerston North for tho past eighteen months. Ho had been locomotive foreman for about eleven years. Ho began at Taihape, and was transferred to Wellington because of his excellent work at Taihape. He heard outside that ho was .to be transferred to Palmerston North,, and called on Mr. M'Villy, who confirmed the rumour. The result of the interview, wis that Mr. M'Villy-mentioned'tho find-' ings of tho inquiry, and said, turning over a leaf, "I seo tho board says tho depot is too big for you," Witness replied, "In that ca6o I must be a duffer.", Mr. M'Villy replied, "Yes, and it has taken them ten years to find it rut." Witness had no 'idta, that.he was being, transferred to Palmerston North as a punishment. He understood that it'was a los 3 of status, but he did not know that ho was to bo kept in a rut; Had he known the -exact'nature of the 'findings he would, have protested against tbem. Li cross-examination, the appellant said that charges had been preferred against him and an inquiry held. Ho was not prepared to admit that tho evidence tendered was largely unfavourable to his administration. He' believed that he was being transferred to ■ Palmerston ■ because a number of men. had given evidence against him, and the General Manager, advised him to take the transfer for that reason. Ho now recognised that his transfer was tho result of the finding of . the board of inquiry. Tho clerical work got very much. behind, but ho did not bring the clerks back at. night because tho senior clerk represented that he was not strong enough to stand night work. This concluded the case, and the board reserved its decision.