RAILWAY APPEALS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1423, 25 April 1912, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEALS.

CLASSIFICATION. GENERAL MANAGER'S SPHERE. AND HIS POWER. >,Some rather interesting cases came before ih« Railway Appeal Board, which sat in Wellington yesterday. Among these wore the decision in the case of W. Thomson, stationmastor at Greytown, and the appeals of John Chctwiinii and 'J. Gordon. Checseman is a signnl and interlocking inspector nt Wellington, and he appealed agaiiut his position on the classification list. Gordon, who is an inspector of permanent way nt Wellington, appealed against his being superseded on the classification list for 1911. Before proceeding with the roses, the Court announced that the appeal of Patrick M'Keov.n, clerk, of Auckland. I'.ad been dismissed, and added that the evidence disclosed that the appellant had not been informed Hint ho had not been recommended for promotion. If this information had been given (o M'Kcown tho case might not have been brought.

The Court formally announced the dismissal of the appeals of G. T. Boimofield, cadet, Wnngamii, A. J. M'Phcrson, cadet, Wellington, and W. H. Olds, clerk, Aramoho.

STATION MASTER'S CASE, "OF FAR-REACHIXG IMPORTANCE." The board disagreed respecting the. appeal of W. Thomson, stationiuaster, Greytown, against his position on the classification list for 1911, viz., his supersession, by Messrs. Willing and M'Govern, who had been below him on the list for 1910. Dr. M'Arthnr held that the appeal should be dismissed, but Messrs. C. P. Ryan and Martin Lee (tho other members of the board) decided to uphold it. The majority finding becomes the decision. Dr. M'Arthur stated that he had guno carefully into (he matter, and he considered ■ that ho was bund by the regulations. His colleagues, however, disagreed with him. Mr. Thomson had relied on regulations 28, 40, and 50. and on Sections 51 and 52 of the Consolidated Railways Act, 1908. Looking first nt the sections of the Act on which tho appellant relied, he (Dr. M'Arthur) was of tlin opinion that they rcMrrcd to annual increases, and not to promotions, nnd were not applicable in this case. On the other hand, the wording of Regulation 28 r<y quired to be considered with care. 1( was ns follows:— "Promotions from n lowci to a higher elnss, subdivisiCn, subclass, nnd grade, shnl! in nil cases bo contingent on efficiency, suitability, good conduct, and merit. No prdmotion shall in nnv case bo made until, and unless, the General Manager furnishes the certificate required under Regulation 10." Such certificate had not been obtained by tho appellant, and, on that ground alone, the appeal should fail. As (o Regulation 50, he considered, that it had reference to special work done, by an officer, nnd did uol apply to the present case. Dr. M'Arthur then went; on to reiterate that fhe difference between himself nnd his colleagues arose through the fact that his own opinion was that the ease whs governed by tho regulations. He did not s™ that there wns anything to force the General Malinger to give the noecssaiy certificate. It; might be said thut, therefore, tho General Manager was an ajifocrnt. Maybe so, but Hint: did not alter the fact that Hie regulations were binding. If the railway men were not satisfied 'with that, the remedy lay in bringing the matter prominently before (ho Minister for Railways, nnd showing him that the classification provisions were not worth the paper they wero written on if the General Manager could simply withhold his certificate. Mr. C. I'. Ryan said (hat the decision, was one-of-.vw-y far-reaching effect. Dr, M'Artlinr'.3 view practically reduced the classification to so much waslu paper. Hβ (Mr. Ryan) did not pretend to deal with the legal aspect; he had looked nt the ense. from a common-sense point of view. When the classification had been put into force, officers had l)een classified on a service basis. The classification, nnd the spirit of tho classification, rested on length of service, contingent with efficiency arid good conduct. The appeal was brought under Clause GO of the "Consolidated Railways Act, I'JOS. There was nothing in that Act itself providing ior tho method to be adopted in making proP'otions, but Clause C 8 (c) authorised tho Governor to make regulations dealing with the matter. Regulation 28 provided that promotion should be contingent upon efficiency, suitability, good conduct, and merit, it further provided that no promotion should be made unless tho General Manager issued the certificate required under regulation 40. t Regulation 40 dealt with vacancies or new positions made. This case did not fall under either of these categories. The promotion made was simply an added emolument given to a position already created, but which had increased in value. Tho whole system of classification depended on length, of service. It appeared, then, that if Mr. Thomson's claim to promotion wns certified to by his immediate superior officer, then he," having the greatest length of service, was entitled to first consideration. Tho Department, by claiming the right of indiscriminate promotion, appeared to be striking at the root of the classification scheme, and to be acting inconsistently with the Act. Had Messrs. Veilings ami M'Govern. whose claims had clashed with those of Mr. Thomson, passed any special examination (such as law. engineering, or accountancy), their promotion could hav« been fairly claimed under regulation 28 No-evidence had been tendered to shovt that Mr. Thomson was not suitable foT promotion to grade !). and the decision of Messrs. Ryan and Lee was Hint 1 hornson must be promoted with a "tag to his correct position above WelliiiES and M'Govern on the D 3 list for Mil.

OTHER CASES. PROMOTION-WHAT SUFFICES P The nppcal of John Cheeseman was then proceeded with. The. board were: Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., Mr. C. I'. Hyan (first division), and" Mr. D. M'Kciuio (second division, workshops branch).! he appeal was against Chceseman's position on the classification list. Mr. M. Dennehey, of Wanganui, conducted tho appellant's case, and Mr. Davidson represented the Railway Department. Evidence was called to the effect that Messrs. -J. Burnett (head of th« maintenance branch) and H. J. Wynne (signal and electrical engineer) had recommended Cheeseman for promotion. They bolli snoke in praise of appellant's work, which they said was entirely satisfactory. Mr. Burnett added that Cheeseman's. duties and responsibilities had increased of lntp. In addressing the board, Mr. Davidson snid that the caso was much on the lines of Thomson's, in which a decision hod beon given that day. Dr. M'Arthur remarked that he thoiifhf Hint ho tav a distinction. Continuing. Mr. Davidson said tlwt what thn board was asked to do was to wt aside the opinion of the Gener.il Manager because an under ofliccr nsrf niado a recommendation which the Oiier.il Manager h.vl not seen • fit to '.Mr Donnelly cninniput-wl on tho fact tint, the Department had not- called any I'viilt'iico. Thn cast , , lip added, was not (ho "saino as Thomson's. Notwithstanding the General Manager's action in Thomson's case, Thomson could' still advance; therefore, tho question in his af. ff'iir was one i-oncerninir promotion. In Cheeseman's ea«e the General Manager had said that Jj.iflfl was adequate pay foi tho appellant, *o Hiatj 'f th" appwi] wns dismissed, CheeH-.iinn would be bound down to that wlnry. ' The defence was thnt it was not pnipnsed to interfere with Thomson's opportunities for promotion, but it was proposed to inleifm with Clieespinan's. Dr. M'Avtlnir stated that, the bonrr. would deliver its decision at 10 a.m. to .1. Gordon, Inspector of Permanent Way. Wellington, appealed against his being superseded by another member en the classification list for 1011. Tho board was: Dr. M , Arthur, P.M., Mr. C. P. Ryan (first division), and Mr. .1. Clmrchou«e Second division, maintenance brunch). Mr. M. Denn-shy anponred for the npnellant. and Mr. J. Davidson for the Ksilwny Deportment. Decision in the cn.'n was rc.sefied till 10. a.m. this racvuiiifti