TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 2, 27 September 1917, Page 8

TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD

EX-CONDUCTOR SEEKS REINSTATEMENT

HOW THE CASH IS COLLECTED

A sitting of the Tramway Appeal Board was held yesterday. Mr. AV. G. Biddell, S.M., presided, and with him were Messrs. T. Eonayne (representing the respondent council) and Herbert Tomlinson (representing tho Tramway Union). Mr. John (yshea appeared for the City Council, and Mr. H. 1\ O'Leary for tho appellant, P. A. Banks, ex-tram-way conductor. The appellant joined the Tramway Department as a conductor on February 19, 1917, and on June 2lj he was dismissed for failing to make good certain shortage in his cash. Banks appealed to the board on the ground that he was not responsible for the shortage. Mr. O'Leary, in his opening, criticised the method in which tho cash collected by conductors through the day was. paid in. The only effective way was that each conductor should have his cash counted in his presence and acknowledged by a receipt. As matters stood the conductor made up his cash and placed the silver ih one bag and the copper in another. He then inserted his box through an aperture into a mnchine containing shelves. Before a shelf camo opposite the opening a lever bar had to be pulled and held down until the box had been placed in the machine. When the lever was elevated the box was carried out of sight. The boxes were ( collected later from the machine and carried away in hampers, to a general depot, where the money was counted. Counsel submitted that there was the possibility of a shortage taking place between the time at which the monay was takon from the machine and that at which it was counted. In the present case the bag 1 * containing silver (£1 19s. Gd.) was missed altogether, and was never traced. The bag containing the copper (9s. lOd.) was intact. The amount Banks should have paid in was £2, 9s. 5d., but he admitted; the amount was a penny short. The appellant, Philip Augustus Banks, gaTe evidence that when he was informed that there was a shortage in his casJl he could not account for il. As a result of two inquiries into the matter a proposal was made that witness should pay half of the amount that was missing. On principle, witness refused to pay tho amount, as he felt that such a compromise would cast a reflection v.pon him. He was dismissed. In the course of his evidence witness detailed his movements about the time of paying in his cash. •' ■" , A considerable amount of evidence regarding the.'system of paying in was called for the appellant. Mr.'O'Shea, for the respondent, referred to a statement that the appellant had made up his money in the car. Counsel said that such a course was against instructions, as there were cases"in wbich (bags of money had been accidentally left in the oar. When the, present system of paying.in was introduced some years ago, the employees, knowing the old method of paying over ■ tho counter, tlected to use tho new'system.' This was the first occasion on which the present system had been complained of. -To revert to the old system would mean that tho clerical staff would have to be doubled. Counsel observed that while Ihe statement of tho appellant ,and another witness 'differed at the inquiry they, coincided at the hearing before the board. Evidence to show that the present system of takirie the cash vnrked satisfactorily was calledlj'yTHr. O'Shea. • The Court reserved its decision till Wednesday next at 2.15 p.m.' ._