RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 91, 6 April 1908, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

WITHHELD PROMOTION. Per Press Association.

Wellington, Last Night. The South Island Railway Appeal Board, Judge Huselden and Messrs Grav (Traffic Manager, Christchurch), and D. H. Jones (of the Dunedin Workshops), sat yesterday to hear the appeal of S. P. Evans against tlie decision of the Department not to promote hi m in grade. Appellant conducted his own case, and Mr. R. J. McVilly represented the Department. At the outßet, there was an encounter between Mr. Evans and Mr. McVilly. Mr. Evans, workshops manager at Hillside, who' is in grade 5 of the railway classification, said he desired to show that placed in grade 4 and receive th<«Tugher 'Salary. He asked for a definition of the powers of the Board. Unless the Board was prepared to adjudicate he would withdraw at once. .The president said he could not give an opinion on those pattern without argument and going fully into the ques-

Mr McVilly siiid tUi s was asking tie the -5";. n ? thc f « nctio ns of the head I .10s f tlle »«Partnient or the general man- «*» Jfn? *?*,'{ ttat the Board '» func » «" evidence the appellant established the fact that he had been improperly treatv ed, and that his recommendation for wT had been in] P r °P e ' -I y withat a „*£• Evans stated that if the Board ighti, j .''J 10 ' nlako the recommendation he atu: J desired, it appeared useless for him to have gone to the expense and trouble .if b , rlM S In S th « a PPeal. The position II " n m,fortunate one for W«W '■fn*l J!'? P, resMe,lt ? aid the **"*» was comned fw V? rac " who were anxious to do he,r duty It was legally wrong for an .' »Ppe"ant to come forward and say he ■ panted to know beforehand whether it Oir y USe F resentin g Ws evidence, and t. hether any benefit would result to him tiniJJ: so ° ol "g' —- ,a 410 i nt r llP he - B , oard had an y *»*«* Ipon otherwise he would withdraw. I L„, ; u 5 tller di3c » sß '"°n Mr. Evans UZ -*\ t0 , tl ' draw - whe » «» P«5It,l Tr ' e k l! c S what would 4pen. '• Ins Jr, ' ) P r l,ably be an oocasionfor th(l m ' MC P r <*entat«m and misunderstanding. w CnxioT n } * ° f the Bo;,rii wwmort . al anxiou, to carry out thc provisions of ™,t ° tnelr . M extent, but they 41 could not commit themselves to answer , a a question such as .submitted by the * ZfT' X ? answw *» anotherVw Mt on, the president said the Board would * 7 C % ! avorab,e or unfavorable recommendation .ccording to the cvidencl tJI JT Baid tluß would b « satfsfacwi.v, and he would proceed. Appellant, m the course of his statement, said he was transferred from Hillside to New- ' "market, from one of the largest work?WS T° f the tallest. When bo left Hillside h 0 was informed that no •' fault had been found with his managenJH '■ • a l d T ,ved a verbal assurance 1 that Ins transfer would in no way affect '• his promotion. When he reached the '" top of the grade at Newmarket he was ;- debarred from further promotion. He ; .ad nol increase in salary since he reuchu Ml 1. (.5 over two years ngo. In March, it ;$' ," 3 re -tr<ansfene t I to the Hill- » i W f rk S He Emitted that his • S l?rr" h * at Hillside wa » highly satisfactory, and that, his present , salary was not in accord with the ira--1 Pjrtance of the position which he holds. , ; ahe manager of the Newmarket shops . was ,n receipt of £4OO, and the manager at Addmgton got the same. The manager at Petone received £315 When appellant went back to Hillside an offi. cer who was promoted over his head in IMU was sent to Newmarket, notwithrtanding the fact that he (appellant) had endeavored unsuccessfully to cot Promotion in grade at Newmarket. He It the Depa'tn'rat why he had not been promoted, and was informed that M,t "? - een reco ""nendcd by the 1, t i, m rv mCaI engineer at Dunedin, ' a h ' s «» would be considered on Ist April this year I son why Mr Evans had not been prow. Zl that llis work tatwwn W Apu , 1!)00 and 21st March, 1007, had not been satisfactory.

■ln answer to a question put by Mr. 1, ??' "PP cllan t said that when he fit / ewmarket hc w» s receiving •t««0, and progressed there to £305. He supposed Newmarket was increased a grarte when lie was wnt there, but for'owing the same lino of argument, Hillside was reduced a grade when he went tnero. The chief mechanical engineer at Newmarket told appellant that things at the shop were unsatisfactory, and tiiat they were very dirty. This was after he had been away for two or three months on sick leave, Mr. Bcattie, chief mechanical engineer, and Mr Allen, workshops manager, were called by th e appellant, and gave miunr evidence. Mr. McVilly addressed the Board, winch will take time to consider its decision ami report in duo course to tho Minister.