THE LONGTON CASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18116, 5 June 1919, Page 6

THE LONGTON CASE.

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD AND MINISTER’S VETO. . V STATEMENT BY GENERAL MANAGER. > Tho following statement liaa been, issued by the General Manager of Railways in regard to the Longton case, in which the Minister has exercised his power of veto over a decision by the Appeal Board: — In view of tho publicity that has been given in tho Proas respecting tho disallowing of tho recommendation of the Railway Appeal Board in the Longton case, it in desirable that the position should be clearly and definitely placed before the public, which up to the present time has had merely an ex parte statement. The question for consideration of tho Department was whether Longton, who the Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insubordinate attitude towards his superior officers, was fitted for and deserved promotion to a higher grade. The regulations of tho Department definitely provide that the road to promotion shall he efficiency, merit, good conduct, and suitability. Longton had on several occasions displayed an intolerance of criticism, and a disinclination to obey instructions amounting in effect to direct insubordination, and he persisted in maintaining this attitude despite the-fact that he had been, as he himself admitted, personally called before his traffic manager on three occasions and admonished and advised in a kindly way by that officer. The manner in which ho comported himself when before the Appeal Board drew from the chairman the remark that “ the gravamen of the charges against the appellant appeared to be that lie did not know how to speak to his superior officers, and that if that conduct was employed what sort of chance would the -general public have with such an officer.” On another occasion the chairman commented on “the sharp manner in which tho appellant answered questions as being Jikely to make an unfortunate impression so far ns his case was concerned.” He also ashed what discipline could there be if a junior officer was to talk reenlnt-ions and so on with his superior officers. 1 . It is the practice to review the railway staff once a year. When the review of 1918 was made it was. considered that Longton by reason of hia insubordinate conduct was not suitable for promotion to the next grade, and it was against this decision, that he appealed. Promotion to the next graao would have placed Longton in a position of responsibility where he would have to control and maintain discipline of a staff varying in number according to his location. IMPORTANCE OF DISCIPLINE. Discipline is of vital importance and an absolute necessity in uie Railway Department. It is obvious that tbo operations of the Department could not be carried on -it every unit of tile service were allowed to act independently and as he thought fit. Indiscipline would result in cnaos. In ordinary circumstances, insubordination is invariably met by reduction or dismissal, and in every such caso where the member concerned has Appealed and the Department, lias established the fact that he was insubordinate, tiie decision of the Department has been upheld by the board. It is ciear from the board’s decision that they recognised Longton was insubordinate, and that he was deserving of punishment. Surely the interval v hich separates a member meriting punishment from one meriting promotion is sufficiently - great to need no emphasis The Department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longton, nor has it inflicted direct punishment for insubordination. What has been done, in effect, places Longton in exactly the same position as any other member who is considered to be disqualified for promotion by reason of unsatisfactory work or conduct of any kind, this notwithstanding the fact that Longton’s deliberate insubordination is more serious and far-reaching in its effect than failure to satisfactorily cart” out duties of a routine character, which do not involve vital principles. If an officer who is deliberately guilty of repeated acts of insubordination is to be rewarded by promotion, the question naturally arises as to what is to what is to be the reward of merit, efficiency and good conduct, for that., of course, is what promotion connotes. Tho view taken by the Department is that the promotion of Longton would place a premium on insubordination and indiscipline, have a most pernicious influence on the staff of the Bervice, and make it utterly impossible to satisfactorily fulfil' our obligations to the public. RIGHT OF VETO. The right of veto has at all times been exercised with the greatest reluctance. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that during the last four -eai s only two appeals have been vetoed out of 140 lodged. In both these cases vital principles were involved, one relating* to drunkenness and the other (Longton’s) to insubordination. The finding of the board was: “ In this case, while we are satisfied that on the occasion charged the appellant’s attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate, we think, under the circumstances disclosed, that to deprive him of promotion would be to punish him excessively, especially as it has been generally admitted that in all other

respects he is a competent and efficient officer. We therefore think

that his appeal should be allowed. ’ It will be noticed the only definite statement of the board is “ we are satisfied that on the occasions charged tno appellant’s attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate.” Tho rest of tho finding resolves itself into a mere expression of opinion—first, as tt extent of punishment, and, second, ns to tho action to be taken. The invariable practice where the board is thoroughly satisfied is to make a defin.te recommendation that “ appeal is allowed ” or “appeal is dismisjty,” as the caso may be. In this instance it would appear that tho board was in doubt and left the final determination of tlie appeal to the Minister, in terms of the Act.

There is evidently a good deal of public misconception as to the constitution of the Railway Appeal Board. The Minister of Railways has been subjected to severe criticism in vetoing the unanimous 'decision of a hoard upon which it has been positively asserted tho Department has a’representative. Loose statements of this kind are much to lie deprecated. Tho public has a right to expect thnP before commont is made based upon the statements of interested parties reasonable care will be taken to establish the factsThe Railway Appeal Board was established in 1896. A reference to the Act will show that it consists of a chairman, who must bo a Stipendiary Magistrate, and two railway employees elected by the staff. When the General Manager, upon whom devolves tho responsibility for the safe working of the traffic, which, again, obviously depends upon the discipline and efficiency of his staff, makes a decision upon any matter affecting adversely any employee of the Department, such decision is subject to the revision of this board. Tho necessity for havir>g some check upon the findings of a body so constituted as_ to have no direct or indirect responsibility for tho ultjmato effect of these decisions must surely bo obvious. Tho Minister has on more than one occasion, in replying to representations for the abolition of the veto, stated that ho was willing to favourably consider tliis request, provided that the Department had proper representation on tho board. The suggestion for the alteration of the constitution of the board in this direction was rejected by the societies representing the employees. That being the present position, it is clear that tho public interest must be protected by the right of veto being retained by the responsible authority. In commenting on the Longton onse much misconception has been created by the inaccurate statement that the case is uniquo, inasmuch as it is the first occasion upon which a unanimous decision of the board has been disallowed by the Minister, and, furthermore, that it had been stated by n Minister that the veto would only be exercised where a breach of regulation involving public safety was - committed. No such statement can be traced. As a. matter of actual fact, unanimous decisions 0& tbe board have been vetoed by eneb successive Minister of Railways from tbe inception of tbe hoard down to date. The fjon A. J. Ondmnn exercised his richt on six occasions, Sir .Townfh Ward on two. the Hon .T. A. Millar on four, the ITon A M. Mvers on two. and t.he Hon W. H. Herries has exercised Iris right three times—twice within the last four years. Tn the mninrit.v of eases the anneals that were disallowed referred to questions of promotion.