THE VETO

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 131, 5 June 1919, Page 4

THE VETO

IN RAILWAY APPEALS

LONGTON CASE REVIEWED

GENERAL MANAGER'S STATEMENT

The following statement ha. been made by the General Manager of Railway. (Mr. P.. W. M'Villy), respecting the Longton ease, in which the Minister for Railways refused to endorse the decision of the Railway Appeal Board allowing the appeal: —

"In.view of the publicity that has been given in the press respecting the disallowing of the recopynendation of the Railway Appeal Board in the Longton case, it is desirable that the position should be cleai'ly aird definitely placed before the public, which up to the present time has had merely an ex parte statement. " The question for consideration of the Department was whether Longton, who the Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insubordinate attitude towards his superior officers, was fitted for and deserved promotion to a higher grade. The regulations of the Dppa-rt-m.ent dejlnitely provide that the. road to promotion shall be efficiency, merit, gopd conduct, and suitability. Longton had pn several occasions displayed # an _ intolerance of criticism, and a. disiaclin|ifion to obey instructions amounting in effect to dii'e,ct insubordination, a^id he persisted in maintaining this attitude despite the .apt that he had been, as ho 'himself admitted, personally called pefore his Traffic 'Manager pn three occasions and admonished and advised in a ).indly way by that officer. The manner lin which".he comported' himself when pefore the Appeal Board drew from the Chairman the remark tha.t I the gra-va-pien of the charges .against the. appellant appeared to be that he did not know how to speak to his superior officers, and that if that conduct was employed what sort of chance would the general public have'with such an officer.' Oij another occasion the Chairman commented on ' the sharp manner in which the appellant answered questions as being likely to make an .nfortunate impression so far. as his case was cqncerned.' He also asked what discipline could there be if a. junior officer was, tq talk regulations and co on with his superior ofiicers. IMPORTANCE OF DISCIPLINE. " It is the practice to review the railway etaff once ;a year. When the review of 1918 was made it was considered that Longton, by reason of his ijisub- I prdinate conduct, wa. not .suitable for i promotion . 'to the next gra ; de, and it ! was against this decision- that he ap- j pealed., Promotion to the -next grade wouluj have placed Longton in a, position of responsibility, where he would have to control and maintain discipline of a ptaff varying in ■number according to his location. 1 "Discipline is of vital importance a,nd an absolute necessity in the Railway Department. 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 jnet by reduction or dismissal, and in every such case where the member concerned has appealed and the Department has established the fact that he was insubordinate, tho decision ■of the Department has been upheld by tho board. INSUBORDINATION RECOGNISED.

"It is clear from the board's decision that -they recognised Longton was insubordinate, and that he was deserving of punishment. Surely the interval which separates a member meriting punishment from one meriting promor tion is sufficiently great to need no emphasis. The Department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longton, nor has it y inflicted direct punishment for insubordination. What has been done, in effect, places Longtoji in exactly the same position as any other member who is considered to be disqualified for promotion by reason of unsatisfactory work br conduct of any kind, this notwithstanding the fact that Longton's deliberate insubordination i. more serious and far-reaching in its effect than failure to,, satisfactorily carry out duties of a routine charaoter, which do nof involve vital principles. ."If-an officer who is deliberately guilty of repeated, acts of insubordination 'is to be rewarded, by promotion, the question naturally arises as to what is to be the reward of merit, efficiency, and good conduct, for that, of 'Course, in what promotion .connotes. The view taken by the Department is that the promotion 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 our obligations to tho public.

"The right of veto has at all times been exercised with the greatest reluctance. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that during the last four years only two appeals have been vetoed out of 140 lodged. ' In both these cases vital principles were involved, one relating to, drunkenness and the oiher (Longton'-s) to insubordination.

AN INDEFINITE FINDIG,

"The finding of the board was

" 'In this case, %vhile we are satisfied that on the occasions charged the appellant's attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate, we think, under the circumstances disclosed, that to deprive him of promotion would be to punish him excessively, especially as it has been generallyadmitted that in all other respects he is a competent and efficient officer. We therefore think that his appeal should be allowed.'

"It will ,be noticed the only definite statement of the boai;d is, 'We are satisfied that on the occasions charged the appellant's attitude, towards his superior officers was insubordinate.' The rest of the finding resolves itself into a mere expression of opinion, first as to the extent of punishment, and, second, ,as.to the action to be taken. The invariable | practice where tho board is thoroughly satisfied is to make a definite recommendation that 'Appeal is allowed' or 'Appeal is dismissed,' as the case may be. In this instance it would appear that the board was in doubt and loft the final determination of the appeal to the Minister in terms of the Act. DEPARTMENT NOT REPRESENTED, "There is evidently a good deal of public misconception as to the constitution of the .Railway Appeal Board. The Minister qf Railways has been subjected to severe criticism in vetoing- the unanimous decision of a board upon which it has been positively asserted the. Department has a representative. Loose' statements of this hind are much to be de-' precated. The public has a. right to expect that before comment is made based upon the statements of interested | parties reasonable caro will be taken to establish the facts. The Railway Appeal | Board was established in 1895. A fcfev-" ence to the Act will show that it con- I sists of a chairman, who must be a Sti- !

pendiary Magistrate, and two railway employees elected by the staff. "When the General Manager, upon >vhom devolves the responsibility for the safe working of the traffic, which, again, obviously depend, upon the discipline and efficiency of .his staff, makes a decision Upon any matter affecting adversely any employee of the Department, such decision is subject to do revision of this board. The necessity for having some check upon the findings of a body p constituted as to have no direct or indirect responsibility for the ultimate effect of these decisions must surely/bo 'obvious.

"The Minister has on more than: one occasion, in replying to representations | for the abolition of the veto, stated that he_ was willing to favourably consider this request, provided that the Department had proper representation on the board. The suggestion for the alteration of the constitution of the board in this direction was rejected ..by the societies j l-epresenting the employees. That .be- I jng the present position, it is clear that the public interest must be protected by the right of veto being retained" by the", yesponsible authority. "In commenting on tho Longton case niuch misconception has been created by I the inaccurate statement that the case is unique, inasmuch as it is the first occasion upon which a unanimous decision of the board has been disallowed by the Minister, and, furthermore, that it Jiad been stated by a Minister that the veto would only be exercised where a breach of regulation involving public safety was committed. No such state- j nient can be traced. As a matter of ac- j tual fact, unanimous decisions of the board have been- vetoed by each succes- I sive Minister of Railways' from the in- ! ception of the board down to date. The Hon. A. J. Cadman exercised his right pn six occasions, Sir Joseph Ward on two, the Hon. J. A. Millar on four, the Hon. A.'M. Myers on two, and the Hon. \V. H. Herries has exercised his right three times, twice within the last ifpur years. In the majority of cases the appeals that were disallowed referred to questions of promotion."