AN IMPORTANT POINT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10847, 12 March 1921, Page 4

AN IMPORTANT POINT

SUITABILITY & SENIORITY RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD ASKED FOR, RULING. “OF FAR-REACHING EFFECTS.” Prior to th© commencement of a railway appeal case before Mr E. Page, S.M., and Messrs A. N- Longton (First Division) and M. Lee (Second division) yesterday, in which Charles Philip Ryan appealed against having been superseded by fourteen officers in 1919, Mr C. R. Bell, far the appellant, made formal application, to the board for its ruling upon, the matters enumerated below.

The board observed that the points | raised were of very great importance ; and far-reaching, and would take time j to consider the decisions on them. j The points placed before the board ; were:—'The appellant, Charles Philip ; Ryan, pTays the board to rule upon the j following matters a® to the meaning and effect of certain sections <of the Government Railways Act, Y9OS, and regulations made thereunder. 1. Whether regulation No. 48 does not exceed the qualifications for promotion laid down in the Act (namely, “efficiency” and “good conduct”) in a manner in excess of the general authority to make regulations regarding promotion given by section 68 (e) of the Note.—The terms “merit” and “suitability” which have been imparted into the regulation are contended to* be so wide and so indefinite as to press unfairly on appellants. Further, these later terms are only reasonably descriptive of such qualities- as naturally and presumably from the qualification as prescribed in the Act. That is to say that an officer who is efficient aqd of good conduct is necessarily of merit and suitability. 2. Whether there is not a. .. definite presumption in favour of the senior member in any .grade that he has a definite right to receive promotion first, if efficient and of good conduct. (Regulation 61.) 3 Whether the onus is not upon the General Manager to justify by clear and concrete evidence special fitness in the superseder, definite unfitness m the member superseded or other definite and sufficient reasons for any decision by which any junior officer supersedes his senior in his grade. 4. Whether the onus upon an appellant is not limited to that, of_ proving (a) good conduct, and (b) efficiency foi the vacant position. Note.—lt is contended that, if the hoard rules that an appellant must prove that he is the moet efficient member or the member best entitled to promotion, the whole utility of the Railway Appeal Board® is destroyed and j proceedings taken before suclP boards 1 become entirely futile by reason of the impossibility of any such proof being within the power of any appellant. Respecting the clause numbered 1 herein, the appellant refers the honourable board to the Government Railway® Amendment Act of 1919, (a) s\* < originally introduced to Parliament, and (b) as finally passed. It will Dcobserved that the Act as introduced embodies a clause at the head ol the pay schedules for Divisions 1 and. A which would appear t.o purport to bring Regulation 48 into agreement with the promotion qualifications as prescribed m the principal Act. _ _ It is well known and can he demon, stratod from the official Parliamentary debates that the House of Representatives rejected this F urtber, when the clause was reintroduced ty the Hon. Minister f.or Hallways to apply only to Division 1, it was again negatived by the honourable House. •The intention of the Legislature is therefore contended to he plam. Ine appellant further submits for the consideration of the honourable board that in connection with the matter numbered 3 and 4 herein it is unreasonable and a violation of natural justice that' any regulation should be sp interpreted bv a court as to impose upon either party in an action an obligation which is impossible of fulfilment, especially by that paity having a right to be presumed to be the aggrieved one.