APPEAL FAILS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22823, 2 September 1937, Page 15

APPEAL FAILS

I'IM WAY CASE 'A CONDUCTOR'S DISMISSAL DECISION OF THE BOARD ; COMMENTS ON EVIDENCE " The evidence was of a contradictory mature and the credibility of the respective witnesses is practically the only matter which this board has to consider," states the decision of the Tramways Appeal Board in dismissing tho appeal made by Rueben Roland Muller against his dismissal' as a, conductor employed by the Auckland Transport &oard. The. dismissal followed a .charge that on June 15, 1937, he had been on the motorman's platform in conversation with the motorman and had not collected a faro from a passenger. . The Appeal Board comprised Mr. WjTern Wilson, S.M., Mr. J. A. C. Allum and Mr. J. 0. Liddell. The board was represented by Mr. Stanton and Mr. Sullivan appeared for appellant. The evidence was heard on August 23 and 2fi. Passenger's Evidence "This case largely depends npon the truth or falsity of th'e evidence of the' passenger and we are prepared to accept her evidence as the truth," states the judgment. " Her story is one which she ' told shortly after the occurrence and which ahe has adhered to. It is not entirely to her credit in substance, for she admits haying made a false statement where she boarded the car. We j ! accept her explanation of how she came • to make that statement. She. impressed us in the witness b,ox as a straightforward, intelligent young woman, who had nothing to hide. " We are not, on the other hand, prepared to accept the testimony of a. witness called by the appellant. This man remembered with great detail everything that, would assist the conductor / and appeared *,o remember nothing else. He contradicted himself in crossexamination as to the time when he brought himself forward to the conductor. The union secretary was a useful witness." ; ' Explanation by Appellant The board added in the judgment that it found tho explanation given by the appellant to be unsatisfactory in several respects. There were but fewpassengers in' the tram when it left Surrey Crescent and there was no reaspn whatever why the conductor, if he had been reasonably alert in his work, should not have seen the passenger concerned come in at the front of the tram. It was a very material part of his duty to observe the passengers. The story of how he came to he on the front platform when the second inspector boarded the car at Chester Avenue was uncorroborated and did not ring true. He said lie wanted to get his pipe, which was in the motorman's cab. "'We come to the conclusion that

the manager, was justified in dismissing the conductor from the service." the / judgment adds. " Taking into account the few passengers in the tram at Surrey Crescent and the fa.ct that the pas- . Eenger. concerned was the only one to get in there, we think the conductor was negligent in his duty if he did not observe her. We think he should have collected • her fare long before he got "to Garnet Road. 11 Proceiiujis Fair aiid Reasonable " " Before the manager decided to dismiss appellant he considered his conduct throughout his period of service, hjs record and the reports made upon him by inspectors from time to time. " There was a ; suggestion during the hearing that the manager had unfairly taken into account inspectors' reports Ere judicial to the conductor and which ad subject of a 'charge,' as provided,for in the agreement between the board and the employees. We think the board's procedure as outlined by the traffic superintendent is quite fair and reasonable. After inquiring into the matter of the charge and hearing the appellant's explanation and having given the appellant an opportunity to place before him the testimony of any witnesses, the manager found that the appellant had been guilty of neglecting obvious duties- and he wa3 ordered to leave the service."