"UNSATISFACTORY"

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 61, 13 March 1934, Page 12

"UNSATISFACTORY"

TRAMWAY APPEALS

JUDGMENT CRITICISED

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) CHRISTCHURCH, March 12. The Christchureh Tiamway Board decided today not to appeal against the recent decision of the Tramway Appeal Board. The only issue on which an appeal could be made to the Supreme Court was that of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board. It was the contention of counsel for the Tiamway Board at the hearing of the nppoals that the Appeal Board had jurisdiction' only when men were disrated as a punishment for misconduct or neglect of duty, whereas these disr^tings were, it was claimed, made as part of the board's policy in rcgrading all men of the staff, taking no account of broken service at the time of the strike in May, 1932. The Appeal Board, of which Mr. Young, S.M., is chairman, did not sustain this contention, and allowed all the appeals, of volunteer workers who joined the service af the time of the strike, also non-strikers who have been superseded in grading by strikers. The chairman of the board (the Rev. J. K. Archer) criticised the judgment of the Appeal Board at length, making particular reference to the presence on the Appeal Board of Mr. W. Hayward, who was appointed by the "-former board. Mr. Archer said in part: "This judgment bears evidence of the presence of Mr. Hayward on the Tramway Appeal Board. It contains statements which could not have been made but for Mr. Hayward Js presence. It could not have been delivered at all as an official decision of the board, apart from Mr. Hayward's presence. His presence as representative of the present Tramway Board is an anomaly; he does not represent us; he has no moral right to be there, and it is doubtful whether he has a !egal right. The Act of Parliament constituting the Tramway Appeal Board does not Bay that members of the board are to be appointed for three years; it merely says that they are to be appointed from 'time to time,' which obviously means that the bodies appointing them may retain or remove them at will. The regulations issued for the guidance of those who havo to operate the Act of Parliament speak of three years as the period of appointment, but four local lawyers during the past few days have expressed the opinion that the. regulations cannot over-ride the Act or materially add to it or subtract from it. REAL ISSUE EVADED. "There has been some discussion among lawyers as to whether the judgment is bad in law. Be that as it may, it is unsatisfactory in other ways. It evades the real issue, which was whether the strike period should for the purpose of grading be treated as a break in service. It is unnecessarily and even offensively critical concerning tho present Tramway Board. Here, for example, is one of its statements concerning us: 'Acts of injustice committed without adequate, excuse by a local body with respect to individual men in its employment cannot be dignified by being called a policy.' That is true, but it is also true that the disapproval of a. Magistrate does not degrade a policy deliberately and conscientiously adopted into an act of injustice. "Here is another of its statements: 'I am satisfied that tho board did not act in good faith with respect to the appellants.' It is unfortunate that Mr. Young takes that view of us, but in, the opinion of thousands of citizens of Christchureh our good faith is as above suspicion' as his own. ' We arc servants of tho public as much as he •is. Some of us are Magistrates as much as he is. We act upon as great a sense of responsibility as he does."