THE RAILWAY SERVICE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10846, 11 March 1921, Page 2

THE RAILWAY SERVICE

AN OFFICER SUPERSEDED ! CONTINUATION OF APPEAL HEARD YESTERDAY. INTERESTING EVIDENCE. The local sittings of the Railway Ap- ■ peal Board were continued yesterday I Mr E. Page, S.M., presided; on thb . Bench with him wore Messrs A. N. Dongton (first division,] and M. -Lee (second division,/. Mr .1. Mason appeared for the Railway Department. The hearing was continued of the case of .). Monteith, who appealed against having been superseded on the 1919 D 3 irst by G. Maclciey. B. j. Lezard, audit inspector at Wellington, said he had much experience oi' the appellant's work, and had had many opportunities of taking note of his work. Appellant had always struck him as a very earnest, hard-working and trustful officer, but he lacked force and was slow in picking up essential details. (He showed weakness m handling a staff. Witness regarded Mr Monteith as an average officer and unsuitable for salaried promotion. He looked upon Mr Mackley, of whom he had also had some years* experience, as a man of exceptional qualifications, who was bound to rise no matter what branch of work he took in hand. The appellant did not compare favourably with Mr ‘Mackley in point of capability. There was a considerable difference in favour of Mr Mackley. To Mr V. R. J. Stanley (representing appellant): While engaged at Mauriceville, Ormondville sand Otakl, as relieving officer. Mi Mackley had shown great thoroughness in handling staffs. Witness could not remember having spent a night at a station at which M; Monteith was relieving, hut he had seen much of Mr Monteith's actual work on the station. The appellant, from witness' observation, had not the grip that was desirable over his staff. Witness could not cite specific instances of this failing, but he had kept the members of the staff under observation, and based his conclusions accordingly. Mr Stanley: Can you give U 6 an instance of the weakness you speak of? Witness: There was not the keenness displayed by the staff that is noticeable in the case of other officers. To Mr Stanley: It had not come to his knowledge that Mr Mackley had employed any person to detect understatements in weights at Ormondville. The checking of weights was carried but personally by Mr Mackley, as witness had noticed personally. He felt certain a man of Air Mackley‘s capabilities would not stoop to such a practice. To Mr Mason: Witness was quite satisfied that he had sufficient opportunity of j edging of Mr Mackley's ability.' As a result of a report furnished by Mr Mackley to the department in regard to the detection of understatements in weights, a considerable reduction in tho revenue of the department had been a 1 aided Thore was a very marked difference in value between the reports prepared by Mr Monteith and Mr Mackley. To Mr Leo; Witness felt he would not be justified in classifying appellant as anything more than an average officer. ABOVE THE AVERAGE. Mr Lee pointed out that the roundtable conference in 1919 had come to the unanimous conclusion that the appellant was a man whose ability was somewhat above the average. Mr Lee: Do you consider you are as gcod a judge of his capabilities as the officers of the round-table conference? —I don't claim- to have as intimate a knowledge of the appellant aa the officers at the conference. I .nay not have been in as good a position to judge as they were. Witness disagreed with the opinion of Mr J. B. Mitchell, district traffic manager at Ohakuno, that the appellant was slightly above the average. This concluded the defendant's case. Edward Alexander Dawson, stationmaster at Thorndon, was called as the first witness Tor the defence. The appellant, he said, had served as chief btoking clerk under him for about four weeks during a busy season. He regarded him as a very capable officer. There would not be much special ability required for the working of such a station as Maurieeville by a man. in tho grade required. Mr Stanley: Would it be a fair comparison to oompano the work of a relieving officer at Ormondville with that of a relieving officer at Paekakariki? —Oh, no. To Mr Maaon: Witness admitted that it was possible for a man to show outstanding ability at such a station as Maurieeville. It was not from reports that a man's capability was judged in the seivice. The officer giving tho better reports would not necessarily be the better man. John Murray Wilson, stationmaster ai Lower Hutt, 'said that in. 1919 he was in charge at Paekakariki. The appellant relieved him, tnd had served undei him. Witness regarded him as as good a stamp of man as he had come across. He could not speik of Mr Mackley’s capabilities. Appellant, into the witness box. paid that up to November, 1919.1 he had had nineteen rears and seven ‘months' service. Ho had relieved at Feilding. Witness was then in grade 10, and the officer he was relieving, was in grade 8. Ho later relieved again at the same station. He had also relieved the chief clerk at Woodville, and the stationmasters at Lower Hutt and Paekakariki also the chief booking clerk at Thorndon. He had relieved in several lower grade stations. Durinig the influenza epidemic he relieved during the sickness cf■ bther officers, and carried on for four days alone, with the assistance only of a signalman. He had to attend to signalbox work and ether duties in addition to his responsibilities as stationmaster. He considered he had carried out his duties there satisfactorily While booking clerk at Thorndon he had served during the busy season occasioned through the arrival of troopships. . He had never been token to task for any slowness in dealing with claims.

• The Turther hearing woe adjourned till Monday .next, when further evidence will be taken for the defence.