RAILWAY APPEALS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 17 April 1939, Page 12

RAILWAY APPEALS

RESIGNATION OF BOARD MEMBER GENERAL MANAGER REPLIES TO STATEMENT I United Press Awnetatlnnl AUCKLAND. 15th April. In a statement to the Press to-day Mr G. H. Mackley, General Manager of Railways, said : “My attention has just been drawn to an article of 10th April in which Mr J. Elliott, as the elected member of the Railways Appeal Board representing workshops employees, makes certain statements regarding the Railways Appeal Board, and his position thereon. In order that the public may know the true position I shall deal cate- ' gorically with Mr Elliott’s statements. Mr Elliott is reported as having said that his position on the board had become most invidious, and for the past two or three years very unenviable. In the first place I would point out that since October, 1.935. as a member of the Appeal Board. Mr Elliott has adjudicated in 18 cases, including those referred to herein, and in 16 of the 18 cases he has agreed with his colleagues on the board in upholding the decision of the Department. “It should also be noted that the Appeal Board is presided over by a Magistrate, that it regulates its ov/n procedure, and that all it is required to do is to hear and determine appeals according to ‘equity and good con- ! science.’ The fact that in only two i out of eighteen appeals Mr Elliott has dissented from the board’s decision indicates clearly that in an exceptionally high percentage of the cases he has been on agreement with the decisions of the administration, and there is no evidence that Mr Elliott has brought under the notice of his colleagues on the board any opinion that its functions were being stultified in any way. SPECIFIC CASE MENTIONED "A case specifically alluded to by Mr Elliott is that of a fitter whose appeal was not allowed because the appointee was considered both by the Department and the Appeal Board to be better qualified educationally and technically than the appellant. Actually three members (two fitters and a boilermaker) lodged appeals against this appointment. The Appeal Board (including Mr Elliott) unanimously disallowed two of the appeals, Mr Elliott dissenting only with the finding of the board with regard to the third appeal. The appointment really hinged on a departmental requirement that the appointee to the position of shop equipment draughtsman must be an officer of good general education and also with an engineering education, together with a good knowledge of workshops practice. Thf appointee possessed all these, but it may be noted that none of the third appellant’s witnesses could say that the appellant had any special engineering qualifications or examination qualifications.

“Mr Elliott speaks of ‘tags.’ This refers to the fact that the Department, having determined the qualifications required for any particular position, communicates these requirements to the staff in an official circular notifying the vacancy and calling for applications, and the chairman of the Appeal Board has always upheld the obvious right of the Department to do this. APPOINTING AUTHORITIES “An extraordinary allegation made by Mr Elliott is in regard to a ‘coterie of appointing officials the identity of whom was secret and obscure.’ Mr Elliott well knows that the appointing authority so far as that branch of the service with which he has been so long associated is concerned is the General Manager and that the reviewing officers are the Superintendent of Workshops and the various works managers. So far as all branches are concerned, there is nothing ‘secret or obscure’ about the identity of the appointing authority in the service and Mr Elliott’s statement in this matter is without the slightest foundation. In fact, as section 5 of the Government Railways Amendment Act, 1936, clearly defines the position the whole matter of progress in the service is. as in the outside world naturally bound up with the opportunities that occur for promotion to the various positions, and if the most efficient service is to be given these promotions must go to those who, in the terms of the Act, are the most efficient and suitable for the positions that become vacant or that may be newly created from time to time because of some extension of the Department's business. “It is quite untrue that any unnecessary qualification is ever demanded of applicants for a position, as any such action on the part of the management would obviously be detrimental to the best interests of the Department. ABSOLUTE IMPARTIALITY "The Government Railways Appeal Board has always been conducted with judicial impartiality, the integrity of its Magistrate chairman being beyond question. Had there been the slightest departure from fair play on the part of the administration in any appeal relating to railway promotions the chairman would, I feel sure, have been the first to protest.

"I am very sorry to find that Mr Elliott, as an elected member of the Appeal Board, should have seen fit to make the public statement referred to. as he must know that the criticism levelled at the administration is absolutely groundless.”