TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 134, 7 June 1911, Page 2

TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD.

COMPANY'S ACTION UPHELD. DISSENT BY MR. KOSSEB. Decision was given nt the S.il. Court tin.-, morning by the Auckland Tramway Wpeul Board iv the appeal lodger! by li'nrv Carter a-amtit his dismissal from iliu Lurvieo l>i the Auckland JUectno Tramway Company. Mr C C. Kettle, S.M.. was chairman, ilr. Charles Kim.ios assessor for the tympany, and Mr. Arthur ltoaser for fehu Luiou. Mr. ''Zirnan (in the absence of Mr. McWagh) appeared for the appellant, and Mr. J. R. Reed for the respondent Company. In Ljiviti'4 decision the Chairman stated the cireumsUncea of appellant's dismissal on Ist, April Ja=t. lie pointed out that servants of the Coin-pany undertook to carry out tTm rules, and that on 12th June, 1510, a special notice lia.d been issued to niotoruiP.n rel»'uing to the strict observan-oe of Rule It re moving can; backwards. Under Clause Jf> of the Arbitration award an employer could dismiss a .servant -without notice if he had good cauac. The circumstances of the collision on 31M, March showed that appellant deliberately disregarded Kule 2i, "and was alrio guilty of gross negligence an applying power in the manner and under thi>. circumstances mentioned. Tin: appellants reckless conduct might JULVO caused serious injury and damage, but fortunately none of the passengers ■were injured, and no serious injury was done to the cars." After relating the subsequent steps Heading to the case coming before the ißostrd, the Chairman said that the only question, in his opinion, that the Board •was called on to decide was if the appellant had been summarily discJ*argec "for good ca-use." If the appellant liac sued the oiupany in a Court, Mr. Kettle, continued, it was, he thought, clear that on the facts as he had found and stated them, no judge, magistrate, or jury would have been justified in giving a verdict in his favour. Servants were bound to obey the lawful orders of their masters, and they might be dismissed without notice for wilful disobedience of such orders or for neglect of duties, or for acts sprimrslv injurious to the interest's of their master's business, etc. The appellant had foiled to justify or excuse his conduct, disobedience of Rule 22 and gross negligence. There were no surrounding circumstances or conditions "Which led him unconsciously into error and caused him to commit a grave "breach of duty. It could not even ;be urged in ■his defence that what he did was "an error of judgment. ,. His duty as an officer of high Tank was to set aji example to his subordinates by carefully observing the rules and instructions and di-scouTaging everytliing in the way of 3n.xity. The public interest demanded that a hrcrh standard of care, efficiency, and discipline he maintained, especially on tramway, railway and similar services. It was the bounden duty of the proprietors and managers of such services to insist on the highest Birch standard. Be agreed' that discipline should not' be purchased at the cost of injustice, but it was equally undesirable .(apart altogether from the pecuniary interests of those •who carried on the business of carriers oi passengers) that the safety of those who were compelled to daily entrust their Jives to motorraen, engine-drivers, etc.. shcrald be sacrificed on the altar of sympathy ami forgiveness. The respondent Company had, in his opinion, ample justification for summarily discharging the appellant, whose appeal must be dismissed." 3ir. Rhodes said. "I concur in that." MINORITY REPORT. - ' Oa a minority' report; Mr. Arthur Rosstr stated that he did not agree with the decision of the majority. He contended that the Board was more than o judicial tribunal; it had a .paternal jurisdiction, and should consider equity ir addition to law. He admitted that Car ter committed "a 'breach of one of the . rules, but the rule..,specified no punish

meat. The rule "was one that was -frequently- broken. • Carter • had teen 8A years in the service, and bis record was admitted to be of the best, having never-been sent to the head office for any■fchiug serious. - The infringement should iha-vo been punished iv otheT -ways.' Carlef~could'uave"" l ßeen "■Warned,' or reduced from third, officer, "to.. :.otdinary motorman (involving reduction in pay), or reduced to the rank of conductor. He iwas never Jjjiyen the chance of' any of the alternatives, but a draconic sentence was at once imposed, a troublesome servant was got rid of, and a reference as to character refused. It'was common 'knowledge amongst the, env . iiloyees that other rear-end collisions ~ Had occurred in the past and the men •concerned had been either warned to be more careful; or had been punished by suspension for a short period. The company had suddenly arrived at the decision to punish all breaches of the rules severely, and a start was made with Henry Carter. Mr. Kosser was therefore Of opinion that the appeal should be upheld on the ground that the punishment of dismissal was too severe for the offence committed. Follow Rosser. . Mr. Kettle said the members of the Appeal Board Wished to state that, in their opinion, where a servant left employment, lie -vvas entitled to a copy of •his past record. Mr. Reetl said the company had no objection, but it must be a truthful record, saying that for &S years Carter's record was an excellent one, but .at the end he was dismissed for having committed a. breach, of the rules. Mr. Kettle said if the Appeal Board •was to continue, some amendment of the Act was required. He considered the . . slipuld be absolutely independant. and free from pecuniary interest on either side. Those? who sat on a bench of justice should not be pecuniarily interested in the matter that is the subject of judgment. Mr. Rhodes nnrl Mr. Kosspr both expressed narreement with his Worship upon that point.

Mr. Heed said he fully agreed with the Court in that rpfvpeet. He then applied for costs. ar<ruin£ thnt had the decision been <nven in an ordinary Court, costs •would" follow as a natural course. He therefore applied for reasonable costs. Mt. Ziman, for Mr. McVeagh, submitted that it -was open to doubt whether the Court had power to pive costs, as tlip statute said nothing upon that question, and th" resrulation did not give tho power to the Court. Mr. Kettle said the Court was doubtful -whether it had power to give costs, and this bein<r the first case brought, costs ■would not 'be allowed. Ordinarily, of course, the successful party was entitled to" costs.