RAILWAY JUSTICE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1098, 10 April 1911, Page 6

RAILWAY JUSTICE.

A PETONE CASE

WHAT 13EFEL CHARLES TRILLO.

The case of Charles Trillo, of Petonc Workshops, which has just been disposed of by Ihe Appeal Uuard, brings, once more into the light of criticism llm Departmental methods of dealing with subordinates who arc supposed to be guilty of irregularity. The farce of calling him "guilty" and throwing the onus upon him of proving himself innocent betore a Departmental tribunal was (says the "-New Zealand Railway Review'") nut tried in the case of Trillo.

This time, another method, involving severe penalties, far a married man wiin a taaiiiy, was adopted. Trillu was suspended. No ilelinitu iime was mentioned, and he had to get private work, to prevent his family troni enduring liardsnip. By and By he was. "written on," but not satisfied that he had had a. fair deal, ho appealed. He was informed that ho had no right to do so, being a probationer, but tho leg.il action taKen by the A.S.It.S. soon settled that point in his lavour, and tho whole dispute between him and the Department came before a tribunal which was free from any personal interest in it.

That tribunal camo to the conclusion that Trillo had not been given a chance of being heard in his defence, and that ho was not therefore legally dismissed. It must come a≤ a shock to tho Department to be reminded by the Appeal board of certain elemental principles which they appear to have forgotten in Trillo's case. This point was rather severely "rubbed in" by tho board, for it quotes no fewer than four authorities, who are very explicit about the right of an accused person to be heard in defence before ho is punished. Their finding suggests that the Department had no right to suspend Trillo without at once arranging for an inquiry into his conduct. Instead, it took up the attitude that until a reply was given to certain questions bearing upon an allegation that Trillo (in a moment of anger or irresponsibility) had written down, he would remain "suspended." This suspension went on so long that it became more severe in its effect than any penalty for a gross dereliction of duty. All the time it never seems to have occjrred to thi Department that Trillo might brfievo he had furnished what, in his opinion, was a perfectly adequate reply, ."erhaps it was not. At any rate this was entirely a matter of opinion, and not one to be arbitrarily decided.

APPEAL BOARD'S FINDING. "THE CASE ONE FOR INQUIRY." Tho finding of the board in the above case was as follows:— "Sir,—Ke tho appeal cf Charles Seymour Trillo, ex-turner, l'etone, against dismissal. "The board has heard and considered the evidence of tho appellant, who called no witnesses, and of the Departmental witnesses. In its consideration the board is met with the fact that there has liren no investigation on the part of the general manager nor any inquiry held under his direction. A letter signed by tho general manager, dated October 11, 1910, states: 'Turner C. S. Trillo is written off for refusing to comply with head office instructions.' This the board takes is tantamount to dismissal, tho severest punishment which can be inflicted on a member of tho service. The severity of the punishment indicates that tho general manager considered tho oflfenco a serious one, and in tho opinion of the board it is one which ought to have been dealt with by means of an inquiry under Regulation 76. Tho board is awaro that under Regulation 75 the general manager may investigate and dispose of any charge in such manner as lie deems equitable, but, as just stated in its opinion, the present caw was one. for an inquiry. But whether tho general manager's investigation or an inquiry is the correct procedure, certain principles must be observed in each cafe. The appellant has not boon heard either in investigation or in inquiry. (Four authorities nre quoted here.)

"Taking iiito consideration Sections 55 and 5C of the Act in conjunction with Regulations 75 and 76, tho board considers that before it can decide tho matter of this appeal thcro must bo an inquiry, in which the appellant should bo summoned to take part in answer to a charge of 'refusing to comply with head office instructions.'

"Tho board therefore respectfully declines jurisdiction in the matter until such inquiry is made and until an appeal, if any, is made from the decision resulting from tho inquiry. The result of this finding is that the appellant is etill under suspension."