APPEAL BOARD

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 188, 11 May 1928, Page 10

APPEAL BOARD

CITY COUNCIL NOT IN FAVOUR

STAFF GRADING COMMITTEE SATISFACTORY A notice of motion which has been on the order paper in the name of Cr. Aston for some time past, came before the City Council last night. The motion was “That an Appeal Board be established in connection with City Corporation staff grading, such board to consist of three members —one member of the City Council, one member of the staff elected by permanent employees thereof, these to select a citizen qualified to act as chairman and forward their recommendations to the City Council for approval. That a committee, to be nominated by the Mayor, be set up to frame, for the approval of the council, the necessary regulations for the working of the board.” Cr. Aston said a similar board was operating successfully in Auckland. It was no reflection on the grading commitee, which was doing good work, that an appeal board should supersede it. It had been urged by councillors in the past that the system was not complete without an- appeal board. Quite a number of anomalies still existed, and opportunities of promotion were not coming the way of some officers who had served the council for from 12 to 15 years. The various departments were hidebound and an officer in one could not get transferred to another, although he (the speaker) thought it should be possible.

Cr. R. McKeen seconded the motion. He endorsed everything Cr. Aston had said. The grading committee had done splendid work, but it would not be fair to regard that committee as an appeal board, as it was against their decisions that an appeal would be made. He could not see how the council could hold out much longer against taking the obvious course of setting up a board, on which the employees would have their own representative. He hoped that the motion would be carried unanimously. Cr. G. Mitchell regarded the motion as a reflection on the grading committee, and he moved as an amendment that the matter be referred to that committee for a report. The chairman pointed out that the employees at present had the right of appealing to the grading committee, and beyond that they could appeal to the council. He thought they would be making a grave mistake in setting up an appeal board, as none could have a better idea of what a man was doing than the grading committee. These boards of appeal had not been a great success. Cr. Burn supported the motion, saying it was the completion of the step taken in establishing a grading committee. He thought it better that the staff should be able to appeal to a separate board. Cr. McVilly asked where the council was going to get to. Members of the grading committee were members of the council and were responsible for their recommendations. Either the members of the council were qualified to deal with these matters or they were not. Had they not been able to agree then there might be the need to appoint some one to hold the balance between the employees and the council. To all intents and purposes the grading committee was an independent body and could have no feeling one way or the other. If the committee was not to be trusted and they were to appoint someone or ’.de the council, would any member of the council accept a position on that board? The committee knew the staff, the financial position of the council and what they could afford to pay, yet here they were .asked to appoint an appeal board of one member of the council, a representative of the staff and a man from the street. They would never entirely satisfy a big staff, and anyone thinking that an apappeal board would entirely remove all dissatisfaction was under a delusion.

Cr. Huggins, speaking from experience, said that an appeal board was a failure so far as the men were concerned. There was more dissatisfaction with the Government appeal board than with any Government department that existed. Cr. Aston said he would like a vote taken so that members of the staff would know how they stood. A division was taken and the motion was defeated by 11 votes to four.