CONDUCTOR'S APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 18280, 21 May 1923, Page 7

CONDUCTOR'S APPEAL

WRONGFUL DISMISSAL ALLEGED. - DENIES INSOBRIETY. Tho Tramway Appeal Board (Messrs J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., F. J. Towiushend, and J. Hunter) sat this morning hear an appeal against his dismissal by Edwin James Collins, conductor. Mr J. B. Gallon appeared for tho appellant and Mr Barrowckmgh for tho City Corporation. The appellant claimed that on April 7 he reponed for duty at the depot at 5.55 p.m., but Chief-inspector Woolley refused to allow him to take charge of his car, and suspended him from duty, on the ground that ho was under the influence of liquor. This tho appellant denied. On April 10 tho tramways manager held an inquiry into the matter, and informed the appellant that his services were dispensed with forthwith. The appellant declared that this dismissal was wrongful, and that there were witnesses who would prove that he was perfectly soiber. Mr Callan said the appellant had been in the service three months. Counsel detailed the events leading up to the suspension of the appellant, as set out in the statement of appeal, after he had been taken up tc Chief-inspector Woolley by Inspectors Anderson and Golden. On Monday, April 9, the manager agreed, not without pressure, to hold an inquiry. That took place on April 10, and the result was the letter, written later the same day, dismissing tho appellant from the service. Counsel said he would attack the case with a realisation that it was important that anyone in a public service such as tho tramway service should be absolutely sober, and ho would not suggest that, if the appellant was not drunk and disorderly, he was necessarily fit for duty. What he did say was that the appellant was not in any way under the influence of liquor. Inspector Anderson had said at the inquiry that, while he was standing at the ticket box at the Stock Exchange about 4 p.m., his attention was caught by a drunk man near tho Fountain, and he noticed that the man’s companion was Conductor Collins. The inspector came to the conclusion that they were both drunk. He said that he saw the men separate, and watched 1 Collins go into the Crown Hotel. The inspector was then met, whether by accident or design, by Inspector Golden. They saw Collins come out of the hotel, and then lost him in the crowd at the Stock Exchange. The appellant would admit that he had two drinks that day, both before the incident that was described by Inspector Anderson. It was true that he had been with a man who was distinctly drunk. Tho appellant could not give this man a name any more than the man could name him, but they had worked at some time in the North Island together, and tho man accosted him and made himself a nuisance to him, so that it was not altogether easy to get rid of him. That was what tho inspector really saw. The appellant, who had been suffering from din.rrhcca, went into the Crown Hotel. He did not have a drink. He then wont into Brown’s Tea Rooms, where he bought a couple of pies for his tea, his wife being away from homo. After that he went down Rattray street to sea a friend named Mullins, but, failing to find him, he turned into tho Triangle, where he ate his pics. Returning to Princes street about 5.30 p.m., he met Conductor Dahren, who woidd say that there was nothing whatever suspicious about him them. After he had been suspended ho went into the common room At the sheds, and told the men there what had happened. Tho unanimous opinion seemed to be that a grave mistake had been made, and he was advised to see Mr Murrow, ttje president of the union, and show himself. Mr Murrow would give ividenco that he saw the appellant about S. 10 p.m., and could'find nothing whatever to suggest that he was under the influence of liquor. He then went to the house of Mullins, who would say that there was no trace of intoxication about him. Counsel suggested that the tramways manager had treated the evidence of the men who appeared for Collins at tho inquiry as being useless. They were all asked if'they had seen him before he reported for duty, and when they said “No ” their evidence was brushed l aside on a preposterous theory that it was ’irrelevant, because it was so late when they saw him. Of course, if the appellant had been so under the influence as to merit dismissal from the service it was ridiculous to say that the evidence of witnesses who saw* him about 6.5 p.m. waa irrelevant.

_ The appellant gave evidence on these lines. He admitted going into the Criterion Hotel by himself about 2 p.m. and having a brandy, because of bis illness, and having a small glass of stout in the City Hotel soon after. He stated that ho had boon employed on the Harbor Board’s railway deviation work, and had been in the Expeditionary Force. He had never been accused of drunkenness in his life. When Mr Barrowclough asked the witness if he know any reason why the inspectors should trump up a charge against him, witness said he did not know anything against them. After some hesitation he said Inspector Woolley might have been prejudiced against him, and entered into this explanation of his belief: He had had an application in for work on tho trams for eighteen mouths. Ho was an unfortunate individual. Ho had had a long series of unemployment in Dunedin, and had contracted a debt of £6 towards “a certain person.” For tho last few years it had been as much as be could do to feed his wife and family. As soon as he was informed that lie had got a job on the trams “this lady” evidently knew of it, for she went to the sheds and told Inspector Woolley that ho owed her money. This must have given the inspector the impression that he was “ a proper bad character,” and would probably prejudice him. He paid the lady part of the money, but she would not give him a receipt, so ho told her ho would not pay her except through a solicitor. She then said she would tel! Mi' Mackenzie that he had been round blackguarding her, full of drink, and would got him the sack. Ho said she need not trouble, as he would go down and clear himself of the charge. He immediately caught a car, and saw Inspector Woollcv who said ; “ That’s all right, son. Don’t worry about things like that.” He did not know if she had said anything more since then. Counsel proceeded to call corroborative evidence. i &eft sitting.)