AN APPEAL BOARD

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 96, 27 April 1929, Page 14

AN APPEAL BOARD

FOR HARBOUR EMPLOYEES

PROPOSAL REJECTED

A proposal for the constitution of an appeal board for employees of the Harbour Board was debated at some length at Wednesday night's meeting of the board. Mr. C. 11. Chapman, M.P., moved "that in the opinion of the board the time has arrived when an appeal board should be established in order that appeals may be heard on the following matters: Salaries, promotion, disrating, and any other questions affecting individual members of the staff; that an equitable constitution of an appeal board would be one representative appointed by the board, one by the staff, and an independent chairman agreed to by the two representatives (in the , event of 210 agreement with regard to chairman a stipendiary magistrate to be appointed)." In moving, Mr. Chapman said the modern idea as between master and employee was that . they worked together in co-operation instead of one against the other, and he submitted that it was due to employees that they should have the right of appeal when decisions affecting their employment woro made. The Harbour Board was a public body, and he urged that there were many reasons why it should concede to its employees the same right of appeal as had been given by other public bodies and Government departments. He considered that there would not be an unreasonable number of appeals; indeed, the board, if established, would be called upon to act only on rare occasions. The value of an appeal board was that an impartial decision would be given. The feelings of the staff were that the constitution of an appeal board was advisable. Captain F. A. Macindoe seconded the motion, remarking that he thought the setting up of the board would create a, feeling of confidence amongst dissatisfied members of the board's staff. "NO POWER." The chairman (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe) said that the present appeal committee consisted of the. Wharves and Accounts Committee, comprising the whole of the members of the board. No appeals had been made sinco November, 1922. In November, 1921, the board's solicitors had advised that the board had no power to set up an independent .appeal board, as that would mean delegating the powers of discipline and control exercised by the board over its employees to persons outside the board or its staff.' ' Both the board and the Harbours Association, he said, in 1925 had successfully opposed a Bill introi duced in the House of Representatives proposing the setting up of harbour board appeal boards. . The board had no power. Mr. C. J. B. Norwood said he felt sure no employer in the Dominion was so anxious to watch the best interests of its employees than the Wellington Harbour Board. The board and its staff would not be brought any closer together by setting up an outside appeal authority, as had been suggested ,by the mover. Actual machinery for appeal already existed, and it was sufficient, as the men received under it uniform justice. ' t ELECTIONEERING? ,T)iP. P.rpppsal, was described by Mr. M. Cohen, who opposed .it, as a hardy I annual; ,it. had, come up. several times in'his experience as a. member of the '.board. .... " A member: "Before the election?" Mr. Cohen said he did not know about that. What would be the value of the judgment of the independent chairman of a tribunal of three —a gentleman probably unversed in the intricacies of the board's employment system? The proposal was unnecessary and would lead to unthinkably chaotic conditions. Mr. J. G. Harkness suggested that the motion, be withdrawn. Mr. T. Moss asked if the board was to publicly admit that it was incapable of managing its own employees, especially when it enjoyed such' a high reputation as a public body. "This possibly will be used against us," remarked- Mr. G. Mitchell, who added that he had yet to learn that there had ever been a case brought before the appeal board in which absolute justice—in fact, mercy tempered with justice—had not been dealt with. So far as they knew there was no dissatisfaction amongst, the employee's; if there was, why had it not been ventilated before? Mr. C. M. Turrell expressed the view that no good reason had been advanced for the need for a change in the appeal system. FEICTION IN PLACE OF HARMONY. One of the outstanding factors of the board's dealings with its staff in the past, said Mr. T. R. Barrer, was its fairness. Ho hoped the board would never delegate any of its powers to an outside authority. If a board was created as sngges'ted friction would be caused in place of the present harmony. Mr. J. W. M'Ewan said he believed the employees had every confidence of getting a square deal from the general manager. In replying, the mover admitted there was already, appeal machinery, but members of the. staff did not think it sufficient, and time after time had expressed themselves unanimously in favour of the proposal. A feeling of unfairness had existed after some appeals had been heard, and it was desired to obviate that. The casual employees of the board had a right of appeal which the board refused its permanent employees. Mr. Turrell explained that Mr. Chapman's reference was to the disputes committee, which existed for the interpretation of awards, as for casual employees and not permanent employees; no such right was extended to permanent employees. The motion was defeated, only two votes being given in its favour." Subsequently Mr. Chapman handed to the Press the following resolution:— That this meeting of the Executive of the Wellington Harbour Board Permanent Employees' Association heartily endorses the notice of motion lodged by Mr; C. 11. Chapman, M.P., in reference to the .institution of an appeal board. The executive considers that the time has arrived when the employees of the board should have the same opportunity of submitting 1 grievances that may arise, as is given to Public Servants and City Council employees. This resolution is in no "way reflecting on the Harbour Board Executive or general manager. . The association would be prepared to accept the general manager as chairman of the appeal board if constituted.