TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15920, 4 May 1912, Page 17

TRAMWAY APPEAL BOARD.

ITS JURISDICTION DISCUSED. Tho Tramway Appeal Board sat at ,the Magistrate's Court yesterday 'morning to hear an appeal by Motorman George Thompson against tho action of ' the Tramway Board in declining to endorse an appointment of Thompson to a residential run on tho lliccarton line. Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., chairman of the Appeal Board, presided, having with him Messrs P. W. Hobbs, representing tho employers, and. G. Lomas, representing tho tramway employees. Mr H. Hunter, secretary of tho Tramway Employees' Union, appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr T. G. Russell for the Tramway Board Mr Hunter briefly placed the facts of the appellant's case before the Board. Thompson, he said, had applied for the run and had been informed that he was appointed. Later, Motorman L. Williams had been pointed. Thompson had seven years continuous service, whilst Williams had only three years and a half. MiBrown, the traffic manager, had appointed Thompson to the position, and this had been endorsed by the general manager. Thompson had an unblemished record. Williams was in the same position as Thompson as far as a favourable record was concerned. Mr Russell said the Board admitted Thompson's good record. Tho Union considered it could come before tho Board no matter what the dispute was.. The effect would bo that tho Board would have to consider every question raised when an employee was dissatisfied with an order given to him by the oxecutivo officers of tho Tramway Board. Ho referred the Appeal Board to Section 6, subsection 2 of the Tramways Amendment Act, 1910, to show that in order to bring a case within the jurisdiction of tho Appeal'Board it would have to bo shown that appellant was punished by being disrated, dismissed, or fined. Tho Board had no power to review administrative decisions. They did not, however, want to let tho "legal, point block tho facts coming out. According to the secretary of the Union, the Tramway Board, by placing Williams on the run, were putting him above a senior man. Tho facts were, however, that Williams had had the run soon aftor he joined the Board's service, but had given way to a sick man on being given a promise that he would have the run again as soon as tho sick man haa finished with it. Later, when the vacancy happened, the present traffic uianacer, not knowing of the promise to Williams, gave tho post to Thompson. Then Williams reminded tho Board of tho promise to him, and tho Staff Committee of the Board went into tho matter and gave tho post to him. Thompson was a good man, and the Board would have been pleased to give him tho position if it had not been for the promise to Williams. It was not open to the Appeal Board to review.the finding. Tho matter having been dealt with by the proper tribunal, Thompson had not been dismissed, neither had he been disrated, and there had been no reduction. Furthermore, there was no question of promotion; promotion must

bo to a higher grade, not to an easier position. ' +1 Mr Bishop pointed out that tno award could not override tho stauUto. With regard to jurisdiction, ho at firs* thought that such matters were witlim tho jurisdiction of the Board, but no had looked the matter up. Mr Lomas, ono of tho members of the Board, had informed him that tho man on the Riccarton run got higher pay. Mr Hunter said that this was sometimes correct, but he had to work longer hours. , . , ~ . Mr F. Do Courcy Brown domed that there was any promotion in respect to tho Riccarton run. Thompson ana Williams got tho same rato of pay, and the appointment of Thompson had been overriden by tho Board owing to its previous promise to Williams. The next grade to motorman was that or : inspector. ~ I Mr Hunter stated that he would j leavo the determination of tho legal aspect to the Board. The chairman endorsed Mr Russell 8 contention that the subject matter of tho appeal was outside tho province of the Board and concerned only tho administrative acts of the Tramway Board. Tho Board unanimously held that it had no jurisdiction, and dismissed tho appeal.