AN EXPERT'S POSITION

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2499, 28 June 1915, Page 2

AN EXPERT'S POSITION

RAILWAY APPEAL PROMOTION IN SIGNAL BRANCH. An interesting case came before tho Railway Appeal Board for the North Island on Saturday, in which an expert ill tho Signal Branch appealed against being superseded in the 1)3 List by two moil from another branch, who were junior to him. He had reached the maximum in his branch, and could not get out of it. Mr. W. R. Hasclden, S.M. (Chairman), and Messrs. A. W. tintchiiigs and D. M'iienzie, First and Second Divisions respectively, composed the board. The appellant was J. F. Wallace, workshops foreman of the Signal Department, Wellington, and his appeal was against being superseded for promotion from Grade 8 to Grade 7. Appellant was represented by Mr. 51. Deimoliy, and the Department by Mr. .1. Mac Donald. Sydney I'. Evans, locomotive engineer, Potone, gave evidence that a man who was a casual litter for four years in the locomotive branch, fourteen years ago, as was appellant's case, and iiau since been fitting in another branch, would not be a suitable mail for foreman in the locomotive branch. He would not have the necessary qualifications. Cross-examined, witness said that previous engineering ex'perieiwo would affeot the position somewhat. There had been great changes in tho machinery during the last nine years. E. E. Gillon, locomotive engineer, attached to tbe chief mechanical engineer's office, iiid not consider four years' fitting experience, fourteen years ago, would tit appellant for the position of locomotive foreman, or car and wagon inspector. Before calling witnesses, Mr. Donnelly said that appellant claimed that he was capable to hold the higher positions by his engineering experience, and was willing to undergo an examination as to his fitness. Had appellant not transferred to another branch at the wish of tho Department, higher positions in the locomotive branch would have been open to him. His position in the Signal Branch was the highest, and unless it was raised his career was closed at a salary of £260. He was practically an expert, and had used his experience in inventing devices which had been of great value. Through no fault of his own, promotion had been barred. Appellant gave evidence that he had been seventeen and a half years in the service of the Department, and his present salary was £260. It was shown on the D 3 list as the maximum for his position. He had charge of the signal locking workshops in Wellington, and had different classes of tradesmen under Ilis control. Ho had .charge of the whole of the signal interlocking machinery in the shops, which meant that about £10,000 to £15,000 worth of machinery passed through tho shops every year. Ho was frequently sent from one end of New Zealand to the other on expert work, such as making extensiv<» alterations to train-locking apparatus. He had been responsible for several improvements in the signal and interlocking gear, and in the tools and labour-saving devices. These had been adopted at a saving to the Department. There had been a great increase in his duties of recent years. Appellant detailed the circumstances under which no took over the position of leading fitter in the Signal Department. He did not want to take it because he thought ho had bettor chances of promotion m tho locomotivo branch. He was told, however, that the Signal Branch was only in its infancy, and might lead to a high position. Mi. Haselden: "And so it may. You ore an expert now." Appellant said that it had blocked his promotion. He considered he could bold the positions of those promoted over him. He had served his time in Luke's foundry, Wellington, and then went to England, where he had three and (v half years' experience in some of the leading shops. Ho also held a- second marine engineer's certificate, and considered ho had a thorough training as an engineer, both with regard to workshops and men. . He had previously been superseded on D 3 list by men who were shifted to the sanio position m another branch. He had a leading fitter cinp'oyed under him to-day, at 13s. 6d. per day, who, with his overtime, could make more in the twelve mouths that appellar» Cross-examined, witness admitted that when he was taken into the" maintenance branch he got an increase of salary. and got ahead of the 'two men now senior to him. Had he remained in the locomotive branch he believed he would have got the positions now held by them. Mr. Mac Donald said that the_ Department was quite willing to admit appellant's qualifications in his own branch. Mr. Hasclden said that the board did not want to throw out the case, but asked would it not be an honourable distinction if they suggested to the Department that, as im expert, ho was entitled to an iijc.toas* Appellant said that if it placed him ahead ill tho D 3 list it would be accoptable. Mr. Mac Donald: Appellant is an expert in his branch, and there will be opportunities of promotion t Mr. Hasclden: If you receive £320 you will go up, Wo are prepared to rcconinieiid that your special qualifications a.ro worthy of consideration. It would bo a pity to take you out of your special branch. Mr. Haselden then suggested that they should leave tho case to the Board, and appellant, after discussion, elected to do so, the board intimating they would make a special recommendation. Mr. Donnelly: I bad intended to endeavour to show that appellant was justly entitled to the promotion to Grade 7 on April 1, 1914. Mr. Haselden: We will Kay we cannot allow the appeal, but will make this spccial recommendation. Appellant agreed to this course being taken.

ENCINE DRIVERS' APPEAL. The hearing was resumed in tho appeal of J. Hislop, engine-driver. Hastings, against the decißion of his superior officer ill not recommending him for the position of depot charge-mail. Mr. J. Mac Donald appeared lor tho Department, and Jlr. Clark for the appellant, and Mr. A. Whisker represented the Second Division on the uoaid. George Edward Richardson, locomotive engineer, Addington, gave evidence that appellant was on liis staff for a bout two years, and ho was satisfied with his work as a driver in the position he was holding at Hastings. Ho did not consider liiin suitable for the position of depot charge-man, and did not think lie had sufficient technical knowledge of the enginea now ill use. Cross-exam-ined. witness said he had no experience of appellant in the control of moil. Ho would consider that a man who could control a largo niiiiiber of cleaners when nctin" as night foreman, would show reasonable hope of proving a good depot charge-man. Matthew Outline, locomotive loreman, Wellington, gave evidence that appellant, eight years ago, gave satisfaction in the position of night foreman at Wellington. He gave satisfaction in his position as ongnieman when at Wellington. Cross-examined, witness said his knowledge of appellant's presort duties were vague, but he did not think ho would have an opportunity of obtaining the technical knowledge of t.be locomotives now in use to fit- him for the position of depot, oharge-man. M«icki<? - . assistant locomotive foreman, Wellington, gave nvi. deuce that on ontj occasiou appellant

anted as senior driver at Wellington for about six weeks, under the instructions of the foreman, and anything ho uas asked to do he carried out smartly and promptly. In tho course of further evidence, it enmo out that appellant had been commended bv the General Manager for promptitulo in averting an accident. Appellant gave evidence on his own behalf, and decision was reserved.