TRAMWAY APPEAL

Evening Star, Issue 18288, 30 May 1923, Page 5

TRAMWAY APPEAL

COLLINS’S DISMISSAL UPHELD. The Tram wav Appeal Board (Messrs J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., F. J. Townshend, and J. Hunter) gave its c'/vision this moraine- in the appeal of Conductor E. J. Collins against his dismissal for alleged insobriety. . At the hearing, which lasted three days, Mr J. B. Callan appeared for the appellant and Mr Barrowclough for the City Corporation. The judgment of the board begins by quoting the rule providing summary dismissal, irrespective of service and record, for insobriety. Apart from this, says the board, the nature of tho service is such that any degree of intoxication on the part of either motorman or_ conductor might involve it m such serious consequences that summary dismissal would bo justifiable at law. After going through the evidence, the judgment proceeds; “ We have given very careful consideration to the evidence in all its bearings, and are of opinion that Collins was under tho influence of liquor when he presented himself for duty, and that his dismissal was accordingly justifiable. “ In dealing with questions of _a man’s sobriety, it is a common experience to have bodies of reputable witnesses expressinn- diverse views. This is often explained by* tho difference of circumstances under which the man is seen. An intoxicated man, especially one in a slight degree of intoxication, does not continuously exude manifestations of insobriety. A man may present one aspect to some and a different aspect to others with the lapse of but little time. This is recognised in the reported decisions of tho higher courts, in cases, in particular, of supplying liquor to a man in a stats of intoxication.

“Considerations of this sort can explain the conflict of testimony in the present case. In addition, there is the fact that Collins, after his meal of pics and the loss of his loaf, was probably sobering up, and the shock of his suspension may have had an added effect. “The evidence of Collins’s fellow-em-ployees appears Ip be an honest expression of opinion based on what they saw. The evidence of Inspectors Woolley and Anderson, however, is not merely a matter of opinion; their accounts of their interview with Collins contain positive statements of facts which are either true or false. There is no ground for suggesting any grudge or bias by the inspectors against Collins. On the contrary, Inspector W ? ool!ey showed himself very kindly disposed towards Collins, both before and after the suspension. We do not believe that these witnesses’s accounts of Collins’s statements and conduct aro deliberate fabrications, and l they substantiate the opinion they formed of his insobriety. In addition, tho unsatisfactory nature of Collins’s evidence and his peculiar conduct cannot be adequately explained on any other ground. “ Our determination, therefore, is that tho appeal be dismissed.” Mr Callao 'said ho presumed from tho decision that tho onus of proof was on the corporation. Mr Bartholomew: I think that follows. They have to justify the dismissal.