SMALL CHANGE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18195, 4 October 1924, Page 5

SMALL CHANGE.

tramway incident. I __ APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION. A case vras heard before the Tramway Appeal Board yesterday moruiug. arising ou' of the practice o? giving change cn tram-:-. A. passenger on a trr.ni was given a number of halfpennies and threepenny bits for change. He asked th? conductor if lie had no shilling?. t:n<l the conductor replied that 1 lie passenger should have given the correct fare. Subsequently the conductor was iii?rr.ted on a charge ot' incivility. The Apneal Board comprised Messrs 11. Y. Widdowson. X.X- (chairman), J. A. Vrostiok. and J". Scott. John Young, tramway conductor, appealed against being disrated on the grounds that he had born guilty of no 1 misconduct or breach of regulations. Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for appellant and Mr J. J. DougaJi for the ■ Board. .T. S. Young said he had been an omp; r 'Vee of the Tramway Board for the la'st five years. On a certain dny in August lie was conductor of the 10.15 a.m. tram for West-minster street. A passenger named Rule tendered him a ilorin, and witness thought it was a good chance to get rid of some halfpennies in his bag. He gave Rule as change four threepenny pieces, seven pennies, and sis halfpennies. Rule asked if witness had any shillings in his bag, and witness, remembering a rule under which he worked, told the passenger that he should tender the correct fare. Later the sarne day Rule was again on witness's car, and tendered four halfpennies as his fare, I remarking: "You'll be more civil uext j time.'' Witness was not uncivil to Rule on either occasion. He gave Rule the halfpennies because after a while copper became inconveniently heavy. When witness received a message that the general manager wished to see him, lie went to Mr Thompson's office. Mr Thompson said: "I think you liavo been playing the fool." He al3o said that lie knew Mr Rule, who was a returned soldier, and suffered from poor health, and also had had hard luck lately. Mr Thompson asked witness if he had ever considered returning to his previous employment, and said he would be better off the tramway job. After asking witness if he were married or single, he said he would let him know the verdict. Witness later received notice of his disratement, which meant that he was reduced in seniority and his prospects of advancement were seriously delayed and prejudiced. To Mr Dougall: "Witness was not aware that change was kept at the shelter shed for conductors. In a letter witness had written to the general manager after Rule had complained that he had been uncivil, witness denied that he had been discourteous, and pointed out that it.was the passenger who really was lacking, in courtesy. On the second trip Rule made some uncivil remarks, and witness said, "Don't speak

like that to me." Mr Dougall said that the appellant was apparently appealing as a matter of principle. He had received as much during September as before he was disrated. It was submitted that the act ,of givftig as change four threepenny pieces, seven pennies, and six halfpennies was an insult. Mr Widdowson remarked that the conductors had 'to take halfpennies, but when they passed them back they got into trouble. .Mr Dougall said, there, had Jbecn no expression of regret from the conductor. It was submitted that a man who took up the appellant's attitude ought to be taught to exercise civility. Mr Vv r iddowson: Wouldn't a reprimand have been enough? Mr Dougall: A reprimand would have been the only punishment if the appellant had not, in communications with the Board, reiterated his right of doing what had been complained of. Prank Thompson, general manager of the Christchureh Tramways, produced figures showing that there had been 428 advice notes issued with regard to breaches of rules in September, Sol to conductors and 67 to motormen. From January Ist to August 30th, 192-4, there had been 42 public complaints. The result of investigations into these were that 20 conductors were considered not to blame, 16 reprimands were administered, two men were disrated, one was

suspended tor three days, one was dismissed, and two resignations were received before the eases were finished. Change was kept at the shelter every day, and men frequently made use of it. Mr Rule Avas not called to give evi- ! denee, because it was not wished to discourage public complaints. The attitude of the Tramway Union secretary was that the conductor had done perfectly right and the passenger had no right to feel annoyed. The union secretary interviewed witness. Witness thought the conductor was annoyed at | having to change a 2s piece, and retaliated upon the passenger by giving liim the change that was complained of. The conductor's class of employment was altered when he was disrated. He worked more overtime hours and his loss in money for September was only lOd. The appellant thought the disratement would affect his advancement later on, but this was not so. Mr Widdowson said that a man in the tramway service must act in a courteous manner." Very often under irritating circumstances a man must keep his temper, and not do anything to irritate the public. The general manager's authority over the men must be paramount. The whole trouble in the case before the Board appeared to be that the general manager had not seen the letter in which the appellant appealed against his disratement to the traffic supervisor. If the man had gone to the general manager and acknowledged an error, the punishment would have been cancelled. The appellant nad acknowledged the manager's authority in the letter, and had the manager seen the letter prior to the interview it would have altered his attitude. The crux"%£ the whole case was the letter. The Board found that 'the disratement for the month of September Bhould be cancelled. Xo order was made as to costs.