CONDUCTOR'S APPEAL

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 75, 26 September 1917, Page 8

CONDUCTOR'S APPEAL

ALLEGED SHORTAGE OF MONEYS

CASE BEFORE TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD.

PAYING-IN SYSTEM ATTACKED

A case which is creating a considerable amount of interest throughout the Dominion came before the Tramway Appeal Board to-day, when Philip Augustus Banks, an ex-conductor on the Wellington tramways, appealed against his dismissal. The board was comprised as follows:—Mr. W. G, Riddell, S.M. (chairman), Mr. Thomas Ronayne (for the Tramway Department) arid Mr. Herbert Tomlinson (for the union). Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea) represented the Tramway Department. Apart from the interests of the individual concerned, the appeal was important in that it was really a test of the paying-in system at present in vogue, which, the union contends, is inequitable and unfair. The system, which came into vogue seven years ago, provides that conductors, instead of paying in at night to the cash clerk, shall place the boxes in a pigeon-hole, from which they are removed next morning by a cash clerk and taken to the cash office. This results in a great saving of time. Mr. H. F. O'Leary stated that the appellant joined the tramway service on 19th February of this year and was dismissed on 26th June. He was, told that his cash was £1 19s 6d short, in addition to a shortage of one penny, which he admitted. An enquiry was held by Mi-. W. H. Morton (Tramways Manager) and Mr. M'Gillvray (Traffic Manager), \ and Banks was told that if he paid £1 the matter would" be dropped and he would retain his postion. This Banks resolutely refused to do, contending that he was not ■ responsible for the shortage. He also refused to pay £1 under protest, and appealed to the union. Appellant contended that the shortage occurred after he had paid the money' into' the machine, because at the time the box went into the machine there was certainly not a shortage of £1 19s 6d. It was apparent that the authorities were impressed with Banks's honesty, because they offered to compromise. Mr. O'Shea: I might state that w« make no allegation of dishonesty whatever. Continuing, Mr. O'Leary said that it was submitted on behalf of the appellant -that it was quite possible for the disappearance of the cash to take place after the conductor had placed hie box in the machine. Banks and other conductors contended that the only fair way of dealing with them was. to" count the 1 cash immediately and give a receipt. The system did not properly safeguard conductors, as. it was possible for'moneys to go astray after they had parted,.with their boxes. . '.-■■•■.■■ The appellant stated that he was now employed as a labourer. He was on the p.m. shift on 24th May, and made up his cash at about 12.25 a,m. on the 25th, whiie en route from the Kilbirnie sheds to Newtown. He made up his cash in the back compartment of the car, in which was seated Conductor Congdon and no one else. His silver totalled £1 19s 6d, and his copper 9s lOd. When told of the shortage he refused to make up the amount on principle. It was impossible for any extraction of money to take place on the car, as there was nobody in the compartment except Condon. To Mr. O'Shea : He did not check his cash and tickets .at the Newtown sheds in the room provided for that purpose. He was certain the cash had not been interfered with from the time it was counted until' it was placed into the machine. ; Mr. O'Shea: Did you not tell Mr. Morton that you could not do anything because the matter was in the hands of the union ?—No, I said the matter was in the hands of the union and I could not <k> anything on principle. In reply to Mr. Ronayne, Mr. O'Shea said that while conductors were always notified as to shortages, they were not notified of " overs," unless the amount was 10s or over. The "overs" were paid to a benevolent fund for conductors. ■Evidence was given by Ernest Wflliam Hunt,) public accountant, as regards the efficacy of the system. He had examined the machines and expressed the opinion that if the system were ■ properly carried out there would have to be collusion between two.of the officials before any discrepancy could take place. Witness said that it would be far better if conductors were given receipts ;< for the moneys paid in. Alfred Thomas Congdon, a conductor stated that he was in the back compartment when Banks counted his cash. He was sure that Banks left his box in the back compartnient. Witness was closely cross-examined by Mr. O'Shea as to alleged discrepancies between his evidence and that given at the departmental enquiry as to where Banks left the box after counting the cash. To Mr. Riddell: He had had many shortages, but they were all small amounts. Peter Joseph Yates, conductor, stated that he had been in the tramway service for the past ten years, and had had a good deal of experience as regards shortages. on_ oneoccasion it was alleged that his cash was 10s short, and he had been summoned to tie cash' office to explain. At the time he denied the shortage, and was subsequently told that there- had. been a mistake, and that his cash was correct. Congdon was recalled by ,Mr. O'Shea, to show that his shortages were heavy and not light, as he stated in his ex-amination-in-chief. To Mr. O'Leary : He did not know at the time that hs had an opportunity of disputing the shortages. Witness admitted that his deficiencies over a period of 28 weeks totalled £6 3s 2d, the largest amount for one day being £1 2s Bd. , John Sillcox stated that he had been in the employ of the Tramway Department for the past two years and nine months, and had assisted on occasions in taking the cash boxes from the machine. Witness described the system in detail. He stated that two officials were supposed to be present when the room containing the machines was opened. Mr. Riddell: What is the rule about that?' Mr. O'Shea : The rule is that two officials should be present. Under the old system the .cashier found that hie responsibilities were too heavy. (Proceeding.)