THE LONGTON CASE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 215, 5 June 1919, Page 6

THE LONGTON CASE

VETO TO STAND ■

THE PRINCIPLES AT STAKE

STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF RAILWAYS.

The General Manager of Railways (Mr. R. W. M'VillyJ has issued a statement regarding tho intentions of the Department in regard to tho Longton case. The statement sets out also the reasons whioh, in the opinion of the Department, justify the veto of the Minister on the deoision of the Railway Appeal Board. Following is the text of Mr. M'Villy's statement:— "In view,of the publicity that has been given in the Press respecting the dis. allowing of the recommendation of tho Railway Appeal Board in tho Longton case, it is desirable that the position should be clearly and definitely placed before the public, which up to the pr* sent time has had merely an ex parto 6tatemeuv. * The Question. "The question for consideration of ths Department was whether Longton, who tho Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insnliordinate attitude towards his superior officers, was fitted foi and deserved promotion to a higher .grade. The regulations of the Department definitely provide that the road to promotion shall be efficiency, merit, good oonduct, and suitability. Longton had on several occasions displayed an intolerance of criticism, and a disinclination to obey instructions amounting in effect to direct insubordinatioif, and ho persisted in maintaining this attitude despite the fact that he had been, as he himself admitted, personally l coiled beforo his traffic manager ■on throe occasions and admonished and advised in a kindly way by that officer. The manner in which he comported himself when before the Appeal Board drew from ■ (ho chairman the remark that 'the gravamen of the charges against tho appellant appeared to be that he did not know how to speak to his superior officers, and that if that conduct was employed what wt of ohance would the general, public have with such an officer.' On another occasion the ohairman commented'on 'the sharp manner in which tho appellant answered questions as being likely to make an unfortunate impression so far a? his case was concerned.' He also asked what discipline could there be if a junjor officer was to talk regulations and so on with his superior officers. "It is the practice to review the railway staff once a year.' When the review, of 1918 was made it was considered that Longton, by reason of his insubordinate conduct,, was not suitable for promotion to the next grade, and it was against this decision that he appealed. Promotion to the next grado would have placed Longton in a position of responsioilib, where he would have lo control and maintain discipline of a staff varying in number according to hi 3 location.

Importance of Discipline. "Discipline is of vital importance and an absolute necessity in the Railway Dopartmont. It is obvious that the operations of the Department could not be carried on if every unit of the service were allowed to act independently and as he thought fit. Indiscipline 'would result in chaos; . In ordinary circumstances, insubordination is invariably met by reduction or dismissal, and in every such caso where the member concerned Has appealed, and thu Department has established;the fact that he was insubordinate, the decision of the Departmcn* has been uphold by the board.' It i« clear from the board's decision that they recognised Longton was insubordinate and that he was deserving of punishment Miiely the interval which separates a member • meriting punishment from one meriting promotion is sufficiently great to need no emphasis. ' ' k •"The Department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longton, nor has it inHicted direct punishment for inSubonlmano,,. What >,a, been done in etteet,: pkcee Longton in exactly the same position as any other member who s considered to be disqualified for promotion by reason of unsatisfactory work " n c ?. lld . ,,C J, . of ,»"*" kind, 'this notwithsanding the fact that Longtou's deliberate insubordination is more serious to satisfactorily ca-ry out. duties of a .outine character, which do not involve vital principles. "It an officer who is deliberately guilty of repeated acts of insubordination is to naturally arises as.to what is to be tho reward of. merit, efficient, and good con f.«et,forthat,of.couße;iswhar P romS. on connotes. The view taken by Hm iKr* n lmt tho Pnunotion of Longton would place a premium on insubordination and indiscipline, have a most pernicious influence on the staff of the service, and make it utterly impossible to satisfactorily fulfil 0 , ." 0 gations to tho public

What the Board Said. "The right of veto has at'all times been exercised with the greatest reluct, ance. this is clearly demonstrated by the tact that during the last four, yean only two appeals have been vetoed out ot.ltO lodged. In both these cases vitalprinciples were involved, ono relating to drunkenness and the other (LongtuVe) t0 ( insubordination. "Tho finding of the board was: In this case, while we are satisfied that on the occasions charged the appellant's attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate, we thiuk undcr the circumstances disclosed', that to deprive him of promotion . would be to punish him excessively, especially as it has been generally admitted that in all other respects ho is a competent and efficient officer. We therefore think that his appeal (( should be allowed. "It will be noticed the onlv definite statement of tho board is 'We'are satis, bed that-.on tho occasions charged the appellant's attitude towards his superiot officers was insubordinate.' The rest or the finding resolves itself into a mere expression of opiuion, first as to extent ot punishment, and second as to the. action to betaken. The invariable practice where the board is thoroughly satisfies is to make a dolinite recommendation that 'Appeal is allowed' or 'Appeal is dismissed,' as the case mav be. 1 In this instance it would appear that tho board was m doubt, and left the final determination of the appeal to the Minister in terms of tho Act.

Constitution of the Board. "Therb is evidently a. jjood deal of public misconception as to the constitution of the Railway Appeal Board. The Minister of Railways has been subjected to severe criticism in vetoing tho unanimous decision of a board upon which it. has been positively/ asserted tho Department has a representative. Loose statements of this kind are much to be deprecated. The public has a right to expect that before comment is made based unoii the. statements of interested parties reasonable care will be taken to establish the facts. The . Railway Appeal Board was established in IS3G. A reference to the Act will show that it. consists of a chairman, who must bo a Stipendiary Magistrate, and two railway em. ployees elected by the staff. "When the General Manager, upon whom devolves tho responsibility for "the safe working of the traffic, which, again, obviously depends upon the discipline and efficiency of his staff, make's a decision upon any matter affecting adversely any eniployeo of the Department, such decision is subject to the revision of this board. The necessity for having some check upon the. findings of a body so constituted as to have no direct or indirect responsibility for the ultimate effect of these decisions must surely be obvious.

"Tho Minister has on more than one occasion, in replying to representations for tho abolition of the veto, staled that he was willing to favourably consider this request, provided that tho Department had proper representation on the board. Tho suggestion for tho alteration of the constitution of the board in this direction was rejected by the societies representing tho employees. That being tho liresent position, it is clear .that the public interest must be protected by the right

of veto being "retained by the responsible authority. Not the First Case of Veto. "In commenting on the Longton case much misconception Ims been created by tho inaccurate statement that tbo case is unique, inasmuch as it is tho first occasion upon which a unanimous decision of the board has been disallowed by the Minister, and, furthermore, that it had been stated by it Minister that the veto would only be exercised where a breach of regulation involving public safety was committed. No such statement can bo traced. As a. matter of actual fact, unanimous decisions of the board have been vetoed by each .successive Minister of Railways' from the inception of the board down to date. The Hon. A. J. Cadman exercised his right on six occasions, Sir Joseph Ward on two, the Hon. J. A. Millar on four, tho Hon. A. M. Myers on two, and the Hon. AV. H. Hemes has exercised his right three times, twice within the last four years. In the majority of cases the appeals that were dis!aliowed referred to questions of promotion."