DISMISSAL OF ENGINEER

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 28002, 23 June 1956, Page 10

DISMISSAL OF ENGINEER

APPEAL SUCCEEDS DECISION AGAINST OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD i (New Zealand Press Association) DUNEDIN, June 22 An appeal brought by William Gillies against his dismissal by the Otago Harbour Board from the position of mechanical engineer was upheld by an appeal board today. » The appeal board, appointed . under the Harbours Act, consisted of Messrs J. D. Willis. S.M. (chairman), R. E. Dawson (for the employers), and G. Jones (employees’ representative). Messrs A. J H. Jeavons and N. L. Millar appeared for Gillies, and Mr C. Stephens, represented the Harbour -Board.

The hearing of evidence occupied most of the day, and the board gave its decision late in the afternoon.

Mr Stephens said Gillies was engaged on December 15, 1949, on a salary of £BOO, and the conditions of employment were set out in a document. These placed on Gillies responsibility for the efficiency of the board's dredges, dredge equipment, and ’dock machinery. The grounds for the board’s dissatisi faction with Gillies’s work included the state of the compressor at the docks and also his work in connexion with the dredge Vulcan, which was used for lifting spoil from the floor of the harbour and placing it on a reclamation area, said Mr Stephens.

Mr Stephens said adverse reports were received on Gillies’s work. Slackness by Gillies in reconditioning equipment taken from the old pontoon was alleged; and there was criticism of the planning of the lay-out of the equipment on the new pontoon. The condition of the dock pumps, which were Gillies’s responsibility, was also an issue.

Gillies had been dismissed from March 31, 1956. said Mr Stephens, and it had been decided to give him three months’ salary in lieu of notice. General Manager’s Evidence

Giving evidence before the appeal board, the Harbour Board’s general manager, Archibald Gavin Park, said: ‘When Gillies was dismissed, I knew of no sufficient reason why he should be dismissed. At his request, I;gave him a reference. I have since read the reasons which the board has given, but I do not think any of them is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of Gillies, who was a capable employee.” Park said he believed Gillies made an error of judgment in connecting £ new compressor, but it was, the witness understood, an experiment ih an endeavour to save the board expense. In any case,, it was not a serious error.

Dealing with the alleged grounds for dismissal, the chairman said the compressor incident had occurred three years ago, and it was too remote to be taken into consideration. The board felt that what Gillies had done was not in conformity with sound engineering practice, but it had resulted in little damage. Referring to the dock pumps, the chairman said there was no evidence of negligence by Gillies, and no complaint had been made by the board or the general manager about his work. The chairman said a report would be sent to the Minister of Marine (Mr J. K. McAlpine).