PLAIN SPEAKING

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXX, Issue 12201, 13 March 1934, Page 5

PLAIN SPEAKING

TRAMWAY BOARD CHAIRMAN j OPENS OUT.

APPEAL BOARD’S JUDGMENT

UNSATISFACTORY.

COMMENT ON MEMBER.

ECHO OF LATE STRIKE.

(Press Association)

CHRISTCHURCH, March 12

The Christchurch Tramway Board decided to-day not to appeal against the recent decision of the Tramway Appeal Board. The only issue on' which an appeal could be made to the Supreme Court was that of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Board. It was the contention of counsel for the Tramway Board at the hearing of the appeals that the Appeal Board had jurisdiction only when men were disrated as punishment for misconduct or neglect of duty, whereas these disratings were, it was claimed, made as part of the hoard’s policy in regrading all the men of the staff, taking no account of broken service at the time of the strike in May, 1982. The Appeal Board, of which Mr. Young, S.M., is chairman, did not sustain this contention, and allowed all the appeals of the volunteer workers who joined the service at the time of the strike, also non-strikers who had been superseded in grading by strikers. The chairman of the Board, the Rev. ,T. R. Archer, criticised the judgment of the Appeal Board at length, making particular reference to the presence on the Appeal Board of Mr. W. Hayward, who was appointed by the former board. Mr. Archer said in part, “This judgment,’’ said Mr. Archer, “hears evidence of the presence of Mr, Hayward on the Tramway Appeal Board. It contains statements which could not have been made but for Mr. Hayward’s presence. It could not have been delivered at all as the official decision of the board apart from Mr. Hayward’s presence. His presence as a representative of the present Tramway Board is an anomaly. He does not represent us. He had no moral right to be there, and it is doubtful whether lie has a legal right. The Act of Parliament constituting the Tramway Appeal Board does not say that members of the board are to be appointed for three years. It merely says that they are to be appointed from “time to time,” which obviously means that the bodies appointing them may retain or remove them at will. Tim regulations issued for the guidance of those who have to operate the Act of Parliament speak of three years as the period of appointment, but four local lawyers during the past few days have expressed the opinion that the regulations cannot over-ride the Act, or materially add to it or subtract from it.’’ “There has been some discussion among lawyers as to whether the judgment is bad in Jaw. Be that as it may, it is unsatisfactory in other ways, ft evades the real issue, which was, whether the strike period should for tlie purpose of grading be treated as a break in service. It is unnecessarily, and even offensively critical concerning the present Tramway Board. Here, for example, is one of its statements concerning us, ‘Acts of injustice committed without adequate excuse by a local body with respect to individual men in its employment, cannot he dignified by being called a policy? That is true, but it is also true that disapproval of a magistrate does not degrade a policy deliberately and conscientiously adopt, ed into the act of injustice.’ “There is another of its statements, ‘I am satisfied that the board did not act in good faith with respect to the appellants.’ It is unfortunate that 'Mr Young takes that view of us, but in tlie opinion of thousands of citizens of Christchurch, our good faith is as above suspicion as his own. We are servants of the public as much as he is. Some of us are magistrates as much as ]ic is and we act upon as great a sense of responsibility as lie docs.”