DISMISSED BY DEPARTMENT

Evening Star, Issue 20372, 2 January 1930, Page 11

DISMISSED BY DEPARTMENT

AUCKLAND TELEGRAPH OFFICERS PROTEST TO SIB JOSEPH WARD [Special to tee Star.’] AUCKLAND, January 2. Considerable concern has been expressed by the telegraph operating stall at the Chief Post Office over rthe dismissal of six of its members following the recent departmental inquiry concerning the use ol office telephones tor betting. A strong protest, expressing the. view that the penalty inflicted _ was too severe, has been forwarded to Sir Joseph Ward: It was held by the staff in tlieir protest that the superior officers broke one of the departmental rules in taking action, winch they describe as bordering on espionage, and that there was more than a suspicion that the present charges were instigated by a bookmaker. It was also felt that the department’s attitude in supplying telephones to bookmakers and receiving betting telegrams was inconsistent with the treatment of the officers dismissed. - Another point made was that the magistrate who heard the charges should have been empowered to make recommendations regarding the penalties.. The communication to the PostmaeterGeneral also pointed out that all the men dismissed had good records, some with war service. Tnree wore married. Except in one case no differentiation was made, although some cases were quite different from the others._ The men were placed in a most difficult position. The older ones were specialists, and by the nature of their lifelong training wore quite unfitted for any other occupation. It was calculated that the total monetary loss to the men would be approximately £6,800. The brother officers of these men pleaded for a reconsideration of the penalties. The protest concluded by stating: “ Both the staff and the public realise that the men' have been guilty only of minor breaches of the regulations, and that they could not have been more severely dealt with had they committed some criminal or dishonest act.”

REVISION OF SENTENCE SUGGESTED. [Special to the Star.’] In an editorial to-day’s 1 Star ’ says: “ It is to bo hoped that the arguments advanced in ,the statement issued by the Auckland telegraph staff dealing with the recent dismissals will be carefully considered by the department and by Ministers. Among other things it is pointed out with great force that as the department supplies telephones to bookmakers and accepts betting telegrams, it is hardly in a position to maintain that any breach or the regulations involving gambling or betting is an offence of a particularly heinous nature, but tbo strongest feature of this protest is its appeal for clemency on behalf of the dismissed men. There is a regular scale of punishments provided by the regulations for various breaches of discipline, and there seems to bo no sound reason for resorting in these cases to an extreme penalty. As the protest puts it, “ they could not have been more severely dealt with ii they had been actual criminals. Apart from any other consideration the long service of these men, their good records, and, above all, the desperate position in which they and their dependents must in some instance’s bo placed should carry weight with the official heads of the department, and will in our opinion amply justify a revision of these unduly severe sentences.