RIGHTS OF CIVIL SERVANTS.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14987, 6 June 1914, Page 16

RIGHTS OF CIVIL SERVANTS.

AN 131 PORTA NT TEST CASE

(pke>s tel_gram.) WELLINGTON, Juno 5. Argument was hoard to-day in tho fioprezi? Otr.irr, before- the Chief Justice, in r.:i anion brought bj- the Public rr.-mVo Association against Donald Robert/on, Public Service C'onimiK?ioncr, !»y aiM.i> or An originating summon-, to secure a dcvlnr.-itory judgment on matters roint'ng to the right of appeal. Mr M. Myers appeared for plnintiffi: and Mr J* \V. ' Salmond, Solk.-iTot-f:?nor;il, ;V,r th,- Commisr.joner. . T:iu fjiiY-.tioiY to be determined were :—- ---■MI Is a decision ol tho Coninji-v=-ioner under th- labile Servi-e .Act, i:U_\ pron ot;ngora;>;,c;n;.Yi:r an offerer to _ position tii.if. has be. • i■.!!-,(» vacant, or to a IH--.V p>-!ti.;.:i. anal and conclusive as n.tr;.!!].-!, a nothor <i.'cr-er. v.-ho claim* to i)': entitled to. ..nd applies -for, promotion, to such vacant, or new position;' ■-' .--"-- s t' ; ich l:tst-me;itionecl officer ih-- of aopual to the Board of Appeal against tho decision of the Commissioner refusing him such promotion, and proiiioiijiy or appointing ibe first-mentioned odicer to iho said position L' 'A Generally. w>at are the powers ot the Commissioner, the rights of <>ihcer_, and the powers and duties of tne Hoard of Apßoal under section 31 oi tho Public .Service Act, 1912? i,O in particular, in the case of an officer who claims to have been, or to bo, entitled to. and who applies lor, promotion, and is passed oror hv the Commissioner, has such officer" any, and what, right of appeal to the Board of Appeul? (5> Has tne Commissioner the right to withhold from the Board the appea l of any officer forwarded to him on any matter under section 31 of tho Public Service Act, 1012? In placing the case before his Honour, .Mr Myers .said the summons raised a very important, question 'affecting the whole, of the Civil Service of the Dominion. li, affected the Post and Telegraph sec" ion as well as the other sections of the sei-vice. and although thit .section did' not appear as a party ; n any way, its officers- wero associated with the rbiJntiff bedy in bringing this matter bo ore the Court. The- question thai, arose Mas what are tho rights of Civil Servants under the provisions of •Secr-on 31 of tbe Public Service Act, i.>l-\ and particularly what right of apnea] has a member of the service? His Hourtir: Is the Statute not plain? Mr Myers: Wo submit it is. but a contrary view is taken by the Commissioner. Notices of appeal. Mr Myers went on to say, were &sn t to the Commissioner, and instead of Bonding them to the Appeal Board constituted under the Act. he decided iho matter for himself and said, Iho persons who have givon notice have no right of appeal, and I will not send the notices on." *•' £*V Jo *\ *"" h , afc authority did ho do that?'- asked his Honour. Mr Myers said he did not know. It the Commissioner had had any doubt one would havo thought he would -have taken out an oricmating summons or -in pome way brought-the matter before tho Court, bnc instead of that he forced the -Association before the Court b? i declining to /send tho notices of ameal en. ...'■?■ '

.llik Honour remarked that Mr Myers relied on Section 31 of tho kci Onder wiafc eection did the CommisA}^J* y that that ri Sht did not Mr Myers replied that tbo Cornmis sioner said that Section 31 did not givo them -tho' right. . In tho'courc of further argument Mr - Myers said that in section 34, paragraph 1. thero was a provision which Save tbo Governor-in-Council nower to ■wake, regulations for facilitatinc and wearing-promotions.- Section 40 dealt with th c order of promotions. This was similar to sections 41 and 42 of the Commonwealth Act. The right of anneal existed there, and. any member affected by a recommendation of the Commissioner was entitled to appeal. Theso provisions were nbt new "in New Zea- . land; they had existed in the railway service for years. Mr Salmond pointed out that nnder • iho Railways Act tho Minister had . power to veto. ' ■ Mr Myers: That is becauso the Board .consists"of-a.magistrate and two per- * sons olected by the railway servants themselves, but the Board of Anneal under this Act is quito a differentBoard. If it can be shown that -both in New Zealand and olsewhere tho right of . appeal has been jriveh in-tho circumstances disclosed in these, proceedings, the argument of convenience raised "by tho Commissioner is done away with 'once and for aILHis Honour: I don't think I have to deal with convenience. The whole question is, what does the Act say? Mr Myers: It says that any person affected by deed of the Commissioner on a, question of promotion has the right of apocal. I understand the same course has been adopted in the Post and Telegraph Department as in tho Railway - "bervico. The Same right of appeal has always existed. ~ There have been a great many appeals similar-to thoso in the Railway Service, but if the view the Commissioner now takes i_ riant, then, inasmuch as the Post and Telegraph Service now comes under the , Public Service A.t, a right they proviously po.ssessed lias been taken away. The Solicitor-General, in addressing his Honour, said it had been mado clear in Mr Myers's argument tnat I public servants were appointed by tho Commissioner, not merely ns a. recommendation, but as an appointment. No Government now had the power «j make appointments except- when* pownr was sp-ci.lly conferred .on him by Statute. Mr Myers relied CTt section 31, and contended that appointment by Commissioner was a decision. With regard to the promotion of ail pen-ons not appointed, Mr salmond contended that promotion aid not mean appointment. His Honour: If he jttp, or refuses promotion, that » a decision. Mr Salmo'vl t\->+ and promotion were the same .Bine. I roiretion did not inchHe appomtmenc to a public oil,-: promotion laean. His Honour reserved hfe decision.