RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 59, 8 March 1912, Page 7

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

TWO LOCAL CASES DEALT WITH.

There was a sitting of the North Island Railway Appeal Board at the Su preme Court this marnaig, Or. McArthur S.M. presiding. Only two cases came before theßoard for consideration. RETARDED BY SICKNESS. Patrick MeKeown (at present a clerk in the Auckland Goods Office, but formerly station-master at Rawakawa) appealed that as an officer in the H*th grade of the service, first division, he had beeo superseded in the daasificatioTi list by two others, who were set and eight places, respectively, junior to him. Messrs. (.'. P. Ryan (representing Ist Division) aad Mr. Lee (representingtraffic branch, 2nd Division), with the Chairman, constituted the Board. Mr. H. Davidson appeared for the Department and Mr. M. Deanehy conducted the case for the appellant

Appellant stated that he had sent a formal protest to the General Manager as he had been given no notice that he was being passed over.

Mr. Davidson said that the case was similar to those heard recently at Wellington but with the distinct difference that Mr. MeKeown had not been recommended by his superior officer for promotion. He had been unfortunate in that during his service he had had aev> era! long serious illnesses. Mr. Davidson also submitted documentary records concerning Mr. MeKeown's Teorfc as stationmaster at Eawakawa.

Mr. Deanehy contended that Mr. MeKeown should have been advised that b» had not been recommended for promos, ion, a course that had invariably been adopted in other instances. The Board, after consideration, intimated that the unanimous opinion was that the appeal should be d inn Wired AN APPEAL GRANTED.

Robert Harrison, an officer In the 10th grade, Ist division, employed as a •clerk in the Inspector of Peraoaoent Ways affile at Newmarket, protested that the Department had withheld his ordinary annual increment in saiarv from £165 to £IBO, doe on Ist April 1911.

i Tbe Board to hear this case was com- ! posed of Dr. McArthur, S.M. (chair- | man), and Messrs. C. P. Ryan (Ist division) and J. Chirrchhooae (representing Maintenance Department, 2nd divisioni. Mr. Deanehy submitted that it was the duty of the Department to supply to each officer concerned the certificates as to good conduct and efficiency which. under the Art, were the two qualmeations entitling hum to his ordinary scale increase. The Department had no power under the Act to fix the salary for any one position, or to say that £ 165 was enough for the work being done by Harrison. Appellant was in the lowest grade of the service, and salary in that grade should rise by annual increases to £2K) as manrnxra. G-ood conduct and efficiency were ail that were necessary for scale increases, and it -would be a serious business if the Department were to take up this attitude of fixing a salary, seeing that 1.286 out of the 1,873 members in this division were getting below £2OO per annum.

Mr. Davidson admitted that Harrison's conduct wu excellent, and he did not question his efficiency at the work be was doing, bat he did qaestion his efficiency at any other kind of work. Appellant ,tn evidence, said that he was promoted to the first dwisHH) on nsmnntusin IMH fltWymiut anything recorded against his efficieacy so far as) he was aware. He had bees told -by his superior officer that there was no fault to find with his work, but that the pay was baaed on tale position. His work eovdd not be ganged without close personal investigation, and such had never bees made. Hit work in the office had increased, and was increasing, and assistance bad been

granted. To Mr. Davidson: Appellant started in the service, as a Junior sttrfadasUan, and was a platelayer in 18S8. when he lost his left arm by an accident, lie went into the office of the Inspector of Permanent Ways after be bad recovered, and was rated as a surfaceman at 7/- a

day. Later be was given an allowance of 8/- a day. and finally rmdeineut examination, and sat appointed into the first division st a salary oi £ ISO. Ue

was given annual increments until his salary reached the present mark of £165. fie had been told that no later

increases had been made because the work he was called upon to do was are worth more.

Evidence was given by Alfred Henry Blackburn, chief clerk in the District Enfiaeer'a office, that, m hi* opinion, the work appellant vas doing was not worth more titan £ 165 per year.

Dr. Mr-Arthur said that the Board felt that it would be a dangeroos principle to allow a distinction to coma ia saeh as had been attempted—to allot a

specified salary to a certain position. They coold not see now the valu* of the work was to be assessed. Sock a principle might lead also to a man being kept at the same work all his life, without being given a chance in some other more position Harrison should be fivea an opportunity to show whether he coold do other work that was eaasridered to be more worthy of better pay than the work he was doing. The appeal wag sJlow*a.