RAILWAY APPEALS

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 97, 24 April 1912, Page 8

RAILWAY APPEALS

DECISIONS OF THE BOARD. The North leland Railway Appeal Board this morning (Dr. M' Arthur, S.M., presiding) dismissed the appeals of G. T. Bennefield, cadet, Wanganui. and A. J. M'Phereon, cadet, Wellington, heard in February lat-t. The board also dismissed the appeal of P. M'Keown, clerk. Auckland. In announcing this decision the Chairman said the evidence disclosed the fact that the appellant was not recommended for promotion. In his opinion, if that information had been given, the case would not have come before the board. The appeal of W. H. Olds, clerk, Arnmoho, was also d'smiseed. NEW CASE HEARD. The first case heard to-day was that of John Cheeseman. signal and interlocking inspector, Wellington, who appealed against his position on the Classification List for 1911. Dr. M'Arthur, S.M. (chairman), Mr. C. P. Ryan (representing the First Division), and Mr. D. M'Kenzie (representing the Second Division, workshops branch), constituted the board. Mr. H. Davidson represented the de« partment, and Mr. M. Dennehy appeared for the appellant. In opening the case, Mr. Dennehy urged that it was the duty of the board to give a decision on the evidence. If the general manager still refused to give the necessary certificate it would be for those concerned to take other steps no* inconsistent with the regulations. II the general manager sheltered himself behind the regulations Parliament would have to be asked to define his powers under the Act. Sir Joseph Ward had done more than any other man in New Zealand to put the public services under him on as good a footing as possible, and on the second reading of the Classification Bill, he said : — "Men ought to be protected, and if they found they were being unfairly overlooked they would have a right to appeal to, the Minisfcer or the Appeal Board. Public opinion would very soon go against any officers in high positions if any injustice were done by them to the staff." Evidence v/as given showing that Messrs. J. Burnett (head of the maintenance branch) and H. J. Wynne (signal and electrical engineer) had ' recommended the appellant for promotion, and stated that his work was entirely satisfactory. Mr. Burnett added that appellant's duties and responsibilities had increased of Me. (Proceeding.)