RAILWAY DISCIPLINE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10298, 5 June 1919, Page 6

RAILWAY DISCIPLINE

THE LONGTON CASE MINISTER'S VETO TO BE RETAINED. STATEMENT BY THE GENERAL MANAGER. The following statement was made yesterday by the General Manager of Railways (Mr R. W.. MeVilly) respecting the Longton case: In view of the publicity that has been given in tho Press respecting the disallowing of the recommendation of the Railway Appeal Board in the Longton case, it is desirable that the position should bo clearly and definitely placed

:..re tho public, which up to tho present timo lias toad merely an ex parte statement.

The question for consideration of the department was whether Longton,\vhom the Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insubordinate attitude towards his superior officers, was fUted for and deserved promotion to a higher

ud«. ** . The regulations •of tho department dsfinitely provide that the road to pro motion shall bo efficiency, merit. good conduct, and suitability. Longton had on several occasions displayed an intolerance of criticism, and a disinclination to obey instructions amounting in effect to direct insubordination, and ho persisted in maintaining this attitude despite tho fact that he had been, as ho himself admitted, personally called before his traffic manager on three occasions and admonished and advised in a kindly way by that officer. The manner in which he comported himself when before tho Appeal Board drew from tho chairman the remark that "the gravamen of the charges against the appellant appeared to he that ho did not know how to speak to his superior officers, and that if that conduct was employed.^what sort of chance would tho general public have with such an officer." On another occasion, the chairman commented on "the sharp manner in which the appellant answered questions as being, likely to make an unfortunate impression so far as his case was concerned. Ho also asked what discipline could there be if a junior officer was to tolk .regulations ' and so on with his superior omcers

AN ANNUAL REVIEW

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 grade would have placed Longton m a position of responsibility, where he would have to control and maintain discipline of a staff varying in number according to his location. Discipline is of vital importance and 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 net independently and as ho thought fit. Indiscipline would result in chaos.

In ordinary circumstances insubordination is invariably met by reduction or dismissal, and in every such case where tho memlint concerned has ap p?~led nnd the department has estab iished the fact that he was insubordi tiate, the .decision of the department has been upheld by the board. It is clear from tho board's decision that they recognised Longton was insubordinate, and that ho was deserving of punishment. Surely the interval which separates a member meriting punishment frorh one meriting promotion is sufficiently great to need no emphasis. NO DIRECT PUNISHMENT.

The department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longton. nor has it inflicted direct punishment for insubordination. What has been done, in effect, places Longton in exactly the same position as any other member who is considered to be disqualified for promotion by reason of unsatisfactory work or conduct of any kind, this notwithstanding the fact that Longton's deliberato insubordination is more serious and far-reaching in its effect than failure to satisfactorily carry out duties of a routine chnracter, which do not involve vital principles. If an officer who is deliberately sruiltv of repeated nets of insubordination is to be rewarded by promotion, the question naturally arises as to what is to bo tho reward of merit, efficiency nnd good conduct, for that, of course is what promotion connotes. ' _ Tho vi*w taken by the department is that the promotion of Longton would place a premium on insubordination and indiscipline, hare a most pernicious influence on the staff of the service, and make it utterly impossible to . satisfactorily fulfil our obligations to the public.

The right of veto has at all times been exercised with tho greatest reluctance. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that during tlie 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 tho othei (Longton's) to insubordination. The finding of the board was: "In this case, while wo are satisfied that on tlie occasions charged the appellant s attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate, we think, under the circumstances disclosed', that to deprive him of promotion rtould bo to punish him oxecssively, especially as it has been generally admitted that in all other respects "he is a competent and efficient officer Wo therefore, think that his appeal should be allowed."

will bo noticed the only definite statement o» the board i», "w» are satisfied that on the occasions charged tho appellant's attitude, towards his superior officers was insubordinate " I no rest ot tho finding resolves itself into a more expression of opinionfirst, as to extent of punishment, and second, m. to tho action to be taken, llio invariable practice where the board is thoroughly satisfied is to make a definite recommendation that "appeal is allowed" or "appeal is dismissed," as the case may h*. In this instance, it would appear that the board was in doubt, and left tho final aetermination of the appear to the Minister, in terms of tho Act. CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD. There is evidently a good deal of public, misconception as to the constitution of the Railway Appeal Board. The Minister for 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. kind, art much to bo deprecated. The public has a right to expect that before comment is made based upon the statements of interested parties reasonable care will bo taken to establish the facts.

The Railway Appeal Board was established in 1896. A reference to the Act will show that it consists of a chairman, wlio must be a stipendiary .iiagis.irate, .and two railway employees elected by the staff.

When the General Manager, upon whom devolves the responsibility for the safe working of the traffic—which, again, obviously depends upon the discipline and efficiency of his staff—makes a decision upon any matter affecting adversely any employee of the depar-miffnt, 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 01 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 (or tho abolition of the veto, stated '.hnt ho was willing to favourably consider this request, provided that the department had proper representation on the board. The suggestion for the nltwhtion of tho constitution of the board in this direction was rejected by tho societies representing the employees. That being tho present position it is clear that the public interest must be protected by tho right of veto being retained by tho responsible authority. In commenting on the Longton ease much misconception has been created by the inaccurate that the case- is unique inasmuch as tfc is the fir«t occasion upon which a unanimous decision of tho board has been disallowed hv tho Minister; and. furthermore, tint it had been stated by a Minister that the veto would only bo exercised where a breach of legulaHon involving rmblic safety was committed. No such statement can be traced. As a matter of actual fact, unanimous decisions of •■h" board h"ve been vetoed bv each successive Minister for Railways from the incepMon. of the board down to Ante. Tke TTon. A. J. Cadman exercised his ri<rht on six occasions. Sir .To=onri 'Ward on two.' the Hon. J. A Millar on four, the Hon.' A. M. Myers' on two, and tho Hon. W. H. Herries ha=s exercised his rieht three times—twice within the last four year". In the maioritv of cases, the appeals that were di«a'Wved referred to que&tisns of promotion.