P. & T. APPEAL BOARD

Hokitika Guardian, 11 March 1921, Page 4

P. & T. APPEAL BOARD

A RULING QUESTIONED. j WELLINGTON, March 8 ! Application was made in the Supreme Court to-day, before the Cliiet Justice (Sir Roborl Stout), by Percy Reginald ‘ Sutherland, a clerk in the General Post Office, against E. C. Cullen, chairman of the P. and T. Board, for a writ <2 mandamus regarding his right of ap- ! peal. The application was made to test the interpretation given by the * Departmental Appeal Board to certain ! clauses in the Post and Telegrpah * Amendment Act, 1919, in the case of a junior officer, Sutherland, who claimed that he had not been given that incre- ■ meat to which he was entitled on his reports as to merit and efficiency. The f case was referred to the Appeal Board, 1 which stated that there was no right of f appeal under such circumstances. The s Court to-day was asked to decide * ' whether that ruling or interpretation ! was correct or not. ' ' Mr M. Myers appeared for appellant 1 1 and Mr C. P. Skcrrett, K.C., for the 2 defence. 1 After preliminary argument by eoun--1 se |, George MacNamara, Assistant Secretary, P. and T. Department, stated - that the classification lists were compiled on the basis of seniority dating :1 iron, 1891. Classification was not affected by. payment of increments but s by promotion, and it was in that respect the right of appeal was allowed. Salary did not affect-an officer’s seniorf ity, and there were instances in which s senior men received lower salaries than s those junior to them. To Mr Myers: The position on the e classification list was affected by the ■- date of entry into the service, hut payment was made on merit, thus a junior might in certain circumstances receive more than « senior. In answer to further questions put by Air Myers, witness said the Secretary, in awarding double increments, did not have to consider all cases. Certain officers of outstanding ability Had received treble increments. The increment system was not controlled hy ro- ! tat ion. " To his Honour: In effect, Sutherland n complained of not. having received a treble increment. He had received a k double increment certainly, but he cone t sidered that on his reports he was cny titled to a fuller increment. ’ His Honour reserved his decision.