RAILWAY INQUIRY

Evening Star, Issue 18669, 25 June 1924, Page 9

RAILWAY INQUIRY

AH APPEAL GRIEVANCE. • MINISTER'S POWER OF VETO. [Per Ukited Press Association.,! WELLINGTON, Juno 24. The board whicli at present Ls holding an inquiry into the seventy claims of the Amalgamated Society of Kailway Servants to-day heard evidence referring to the pay of machinists, and then proceeded to a discussion on tho power of the Minister ol Railways to veto or amend the finding ol tho Railway Appeal Board, which is com prised of a magistrate, a representative of the First Division of railway servants, and a representative of the Second Division. Mr Connolly, for tho A.S.R.S., said this was a matter for an amendment of the Act. Members found themselves in an anomalous position. If a man committed a breach and was dismissed, reduced, 01 fined by tho General Manager, ho conJd appeal to the Appeal Board, which gave a decision. If it were a two to one do cla ion in favor of the appellant the Minis ter often vetoed the finding. The late Mi Merries, he stated, never exorcised hi; power of veto without consulting his departmental heads. In other words, the General Manager was asked to say whether ho was wrong in the first place. Naturally, ho would not admit being wrong, and the Minister issued a veto. The men were lasing confidence in tin board altogether, and it was time that the position was remedied. The hoard was no functioning as it should function, if tli men got a two to one decision it was in variably vetoed.

Mr Sterling, on behalf of the depart mont, explained the provisions of tho Art He staled that the power to veto accord mg to Mr Connolly was apparently to tin great disadvantage of tho men. The fan was that cases of veto were very few and far between The. Appeal Board w:iuniqne in that the department was no' represented on it. Apart from the chan man, both members were employees. 1 could hardly bo suggested that the FirDiviaion member who was e.l3cted repre seated the department. Some check iva necessary on the findings, which wen often majority decisions. Tho depail mental view was that the power of vei should be abolished if tho department ha direct representation. This might afford a solution of the difficulty. While tin board was constituted as it was at [ire sent, they had to have some check oi its opeialiens. Mr Connolly quoted an instance of ;

porter who was promoted to the posit 10 of signalman, ami then, after five years, was transferred to the position of stoje man, a position precisely similar to that o signalman. The man proved incornpeten as a storeman, and was reduced to thi 'position of porter. There was an appeai and two elected members of the conn found that he was wrongly reduced, and should have been left in the position o signalman. Tho chairman found that tin appeal should he dismissed. Ho statec Fiat lie could not enter into the matter o Iho position of the appellant as signal mam The Minister vetoed the majority hading. Mr Sterling said it would be dangerom to accept, that as a case in point. Mr Justice Frazer said that the P. and T. Board appealed to him more than tin I'ailwavs Board. Me asked Mr Connolly how a board consisting of a magistrate, ; dcnartroentiil representative, and a- repn soutativo of the Minister appealed to bin Mr Connolly replied that they had a re quest before the inquiry for tho abolition of the power of veto. They had to stand to that.