THE "MINISTER'S VETO"

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 199, 17 May 1919, Page 8

THE "MINISTER'S VETO"

AGAINST RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD THE LONGTON CASE The Minister of Railways has reversed the decision of the Railway Appeal Board in the case of A. N. Longton, a booking clerk 'in the Thorndou office, who appealed against the decision of the Department not to promote him, tho reason given by the Department being that ho lacked a sense of discipline.. On tho same ground the Department, through tlia Minister, has vetoed the finding of the Appeal Board. , The letter received by Mr. Longton dealing with the matter is as follows, tho letter bearing the signature of Mr. R. W. M'Villy, General Manager of Railways:— "By direction of tho Minister of Railways, I forward a copy of the finding of the North Island Railway Board of Appeal in the mutter of your appeal against your having been superseded on D 3 for 1918. After fully'reviewing your case, the Minister regrets that, having regard to your insubordinate conduct, ha is unable, in the interests of discipline to confirm the finding of tho board, and your appeal has accordingly been disallowed." j Mr. M. J. Mack, secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, who' represented Longton before the Appeaj l.'nird, made a statement yesterday to a reporter in connection with' the position which has arisen. "So far as I am concerned," stated Mr. Mack, "I have received no official advice in the matter, and T am inclined to the belief that there is some misapprehension connected' with it, because I do not believe that tho Minister would exercise l'-is power of veto where the decision of the Railway Appeal Board was unanimous. If ho has done so, then the usefulness of the board is absolutely destroyed, and it will be necessary to the. organisations of rnilwaymen to take some definite steps to have the Minister's power of- veto removed.

"If tin; Department holds any inforni.v tion which was not placed before the board, then clearly it is the fault of the Department for not placintf it there. By withholding information that should go before the board, and putting the sams before the .Minister, the Department would be resorting to what could only bo termed back-door methods. I hesitnta to believe that the Department would do this, or that the Minister would accept it. If the Minister did, then the Appeal Hoard would be nothing more or less'than a delusion and a snare. I could understand the Minister exercising his yeto i! there had been a majority decision only, but not in the case referred to, where tho decision was unanimous." :