Report on railcar guard disputed

Press, 26 November 1982, Page 4

Report on railcar guard disputed

PA Wellington The National Union of Railwaymen has accused an independent investigator, Mr Harold Duncan, of failing to meet the terms of reference in his report on the Silver Fern railcar guard dispute. Mr Duncan said that the assistant guard on the railcar between Auckland and Wellington on April 14, Mr H. R. Nicholson, had acted in an unobliging and discourteous

manner towards passengers. The report also said that the Railways Corporation had acted fairly towards Mr Nicholson in the inquiry regarding allegations of misconduct and this subsequent disciplining. Mr Nicholson's permanent removal from top-roster guard duties should be changed to a two-year removal, Mr Duncan said. He said that Mr Nicholson should be given the opportunity of sharing , in top-roster duties from May 20, 1984. Commenting on the decision, the union’s secretary, Mr Donald Goodfellow, said that Mr Duncan had misinterpreted the terms of refer-

ence wmcn requirea nim, to establish whether the corporation acted fairly towards Mr Nicholson in the manner in which it conducted its inquiry regarding allegations of misconduct against him and the subsequent disciplining of him.” The union had made several allegations of unfair conduct against the corporation which bad been unsatisfactorily dealt with by Mr Duncan, said Mr Goodfellow. Mr Duncan, a former Assistant Secretary of Labour, should reconsider these points. However, Mr Duncan, appointed. the investigator by the Federation of Labour and

the Labour Department, said his terms of reference included a clause which said that his findings and recommendations would be binding on all parties. “I made a very thorough investigation ... the parties had every opportunity to make submissions and did so,” he said. Mr Goodfellow said that the corporation failed to supply Mr Nicholson with a

copv of a letter of complaint from Mrs K. A. Henrard to the Minister of Railways, Mr Gain On April 28, Mrs Henrard, a passenger on the April 14 railcar with her baby, wrote to Mr Gair complaining of Mr Nicholson’s conduct. She said that he had been rude to her when asking her to turn her seat round. Mr Goodfellow said that Mr Nicholson should have been given an opportunity to comment on Mrs Henrard’s letter. Mr Duncan had found the corporation acted fairly because he did not consider Mr Nicholson was prejudiced “by this failure,” he said. “Surely whether or not . there were prejudicial consequences,., resulting from the corporation's failure is irrelevant. “This case has implications for thousands of other railway workers and a primary concern is to ensure that fair procedures are followed,” Mr .. Goodfellow said.