RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 140, 15 June 1909, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

■SITTING TN DUNEDIN. fBT TELEGRAPH — PHES3 ASSOCIATION^ DUNEDIN, 14th June. At the sitting of the Railway Appeal Board, Guard AY. Wenn, whose pay had been reduced, appealed against the decision of the department. Counsel for the appellant driver fetated that it wab a matter of impossibility on some parts of tho section to run trains according to time-table limits. Decision was reserved. The third case taken was an appeal by Guard J. A. Shiels against the infliction of a fine of £5 for negligence in connection with tho bieaking away of two loaded trucks from the New Cavereham Tunnel works. The trucks broke away with the brakes off, and were not • stopped until they reached Dunedin Station yard. Appellant claimed that there was no negligence on his part. J. Graham Campbell, tablet porter, on whose part negligence had also been alleged in connection with the same occurrence, in not having the stop block on the branch line locked, and who was fined £5, also appealed, on the ground that he had not been given an opportunity of defending himself, but had been suspended and fined op. admissions made by him at the enquiry into the breaking away of the trucks. In both instances decisions were reserved. Robert Millar appealed against his dismissal from the position of labourer in the 'Hillside workshops. The ground of the department's action was general inefficiency. ILengthy evidence was taken, and decision was again reserved. Edward Isaac Keyes lodged an appeal on the grounds that he had been unjustly superseded by other porters in the matter of promotion. The department's case was that he had not shown due capacity for the position of shunter when in that position at LBalclutha. Evidence was tendered for tho department by stationmasters under whom appellant had previou6ly served as shunter, and tho opinion expressed by them was that he was not physically equal to the work. Appellant protested that he was quite capable of doing the work, but the board held that, under the circumstnnces, it could not see its vay to interfere with appellant's position.