The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1911. DISCONTENTED RAILWAY SERVANTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1122, 9 May 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1911. DISCONTENTED RAILWAY SERVANTS.

. 4 It has been made abundantly clear of late that a great deal of dissatisfaction exists amongst the railway employees of the State. Complaints arc being made by the employees in all parts of the country and the replies, such as have been made, are far from convincing. Some of the grievances of the men have been voiced through our columns, others have appeared in the

Railway Servants' publications, and in such detail as to call for,official rejoinder. In the last issue of the Railway Officers' Advocate the appointment of Mr. Millar's son to the position of "AssistantElectrician _ and Draughtsman" is further reviewed by a contributor, "Searchlight," and he makes some points which are of general interest and concern, and which the Minister cannot afford to ignore. It now appears, according to the correspondent in question, that the title of "Assistant-Electrician and Draughtsman," which appeared opposite the name of the Minister's son in the Departmental list, has been omitted, and that of "clerk" substituted. Naturally this change has provoked comment. The. ordinal appointment, it will be recalled, was defended after a fashion by both Mr.' Millar and Sir Joseph Ward. If their defence was sound and Mr. Millar, Jus., was qualified for, and entitled to, the position of Assistant-Electrician and Draughtsman, why has the change stated now been made 1 It is reported that an engineering cadet, without influence of any land to back him, was refused one year's leave of absence for the same purpose as the Minister's son had been granted two years' leave of absence; and that other reasonable requests of a like nature have been refused by the Department. What has Mn. Millar to say to this? He cannot afford to ignore statements of this kind. It is a simple thing for him to state whether or not his son has been granted a concession which has been refused to other officers of the Railway Service; and, if so, whether it was with his approval. The Minister's approval appears to be necessary in most matters connected with the service.

It is worth noting that the regulations under the Railways Act, 1908, dealing with promotions are claimed to have a direct bearing on the case of the Minister's son. We quote the particular regulations relevant to the matter as published in the Advocate. They arc as follow: "After, five years' service draughting cadets will bo ranked as draughtsmen and will receive one hundred and thirty-five pounds per annum." (Clause 31.) "No draughting-cadet will be retained in the service unless he has passed the Senior Civil Service examination in arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, theoretical mechanics, magnetism, and elect.ricitv, and applied mechanics." (Clause 16b.)" "No member absent on extended sick leave shall be considered eligible lor promotion during such absence." (Clause 39.) "No promotion shall take place until it has been confirmed bv the Minister." (Clause 35.) These, regulations, it will bo seen, give rise to certain definite questions. First of all five years' service is necessary to entitle a cadet to rank as draughtsman. Has Mr. Millar's son the support of this period of service! "Searchlight" contends that he has not—that Mr. Millar, Jun., mastered both draughting- and electricity in less than four years. Then Clause 16b states that no draughting cadet shall be retained in the service unless he has passed the Senior Civil Service Examination in certain subjects. Has Mr. Millar's son qualified himself in this respect'! Again "Searchlight" says he has not. What has Mr. Millar. Sen., to say? Clause 39 disqualifies any member of the service from promotion while absent on extended sick leave. "Searchlight" pertinently asks whether this disqualification which is applied to men absent through illness was waived in the case of Mr. Millar's son, absent for two years on holiday leave? "The spirit and intention of the Railways Act is," he contends, "that the person to whom an increase is given, or who is promoted, shall, during a period covering a full twelvemonths' work, have proved his efficiency in actual work and given satisfaction in respect to conduct. Was _ Mr. Millars efficiency in electricity and draughting proved during the space of twelve months prior to the date of his promotion?" When these questions are answered by the Minister it will be necessary for him to explain what steps he took to test the bona fides of his son's promotion, for it should be noted that under the Act no promotion can take effect until it has been approved by the Minister. Up to the present Mr. Millar has taken refuge in silence. Why? The Minister might well begin his reply to tho complaints of the railway employees by making it clear that his own son's promotion was in accordance with the regulations and without injustice to other members of the service.