THE RAILWAY MEN

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10849, 15 March 1921, Page 3

THE RAILWAY MEN

APPEAL BOARD SITTINGS IMPORTANT POINTS IN CASE OF C. P. RYAN. THE HELEN&VILLB STATIONMASTER. The local sittings of the North Island Railways Board oi Appeal was continued yesterday. Mr E. Page. S-M., presided, and he had associated with him Messrs A. N. Longton and M. Lee. The appeal of C. P. Ryan, 6fcationmaster at Mercer, against having been superseded for promotion was concluded, appellant’s case being placed before the board in an address by Mr C. R- Bell Mr J. Mason analysed tho evidence on behalf of the department. The board reserved its decision, together with its judgment on certain important points of interpretation of the Act and regulations which were/dealt with in the “New Zealand Times'’ of Saturday last. Mr Bell said he wae anxious to obtain an earlv decision, for the reason that, in the "event of the contentions on behalf of the appellant not bqjng upheld by the board, the matter would possibly become the subject of further proceedings. He asked the board to reserve its finding on the case of Kyan until the decision upon the law points wae given. The board will deliver its ruling on these matters in a few days, and the chairman stated that the points would be reserved in connection with the appeal of Ryan. A STATION MASTER SUPERSEDED. ALLEGED TO BE UNRELIABLE. G. Duncan, statiomnaster .at Helensville (Mr C. R. Bell), appealed against his position on tb© D 3 Classification List of 1919. He contended that h© had been reduced a grade and superseded by men. who were below him. In answer to the chairman, Mr *T. Mason, for the department, said that jn 1918 the appellant was grade 6, No. 75, and in 1919 grade 5. No. 6. The men who superseded him were placed in grade 4. TRANSPORT WAGONS. Evan. Rapley, stationmaster at Hastings, said he had known the appellant for a little over four years, but had never worked with him. At one time, witness was warned by one of his clerks to be careful in any transaction he had with Mr Duncan. He acted on the. advice, aud found that the warning given was justified. Mr Bell: What inference did you take from the warning: That appellant was not honest, forgetful, or what?— That he could not be relied on. That he would undertake to do certain work and fail to cstrry out the undertaking?—That is so. Gan you give any specific instance of such neglect on the part of Mr Duncan?—No. I found the warning justified generally speaking. “Generally speaking” will not do. Can you give one single instance?—No. Was the trouble with transport supply of wagons?—Yes. Is it not a fact that appellant would at times experience considerable difficulty in meeting requirements in the matter of supply of wagons?—Yes. ■ Mr Page: You say you found the appellant unreliable?—Yes. What is your opinion of Mr Duncan as a railwayman ? —That he is unreliable. In the matter of transport only?—Principally. Mr J Bevin, district traffic manager at Wellington, traced the appellant’s early career with the department, and read the following extracts from the head office record of appellant: Cautioned for absenting himself from his office without leave; fined «£5 for claiming expenses to which he was not entitled; cautioned for failing to see that ca&h was paid in. The witness then quoted from local offioe records in support of the contention that appellant’s conduct dn the matter of the control of transport at Napier was unsatisfactory. Mr Page said that usually the incidents dealt with in local records were not really serious and, therefore, the board would prefer to have the considered opinion of a responsible officer who had had a reasonable opportunity of forming an opinion of the appellant. The local records could be referred to if the responsible officer's opinion, was attached. Mr Mason said they would always be in a difficulty in deciding what was a "reasonable opportunity/ Mr Page: I think you can leave that to the board, which must be credited with a little intelligence. A UNANIMOUS DECISION. Mr Bevin, continuing his evidence, said that at the round table conference it was unanimously agreed that the appellant was suitable for sub-grade promotion only. He was not suitable for district traffic office work, and it was felt that his word could not be relied on in connection with transport matters. The men who superseded him possessed higher qualifications than Duncan. To Mr Bell: Appellant wae a poor correspondent, and witness felt, lacked candour in conversation. There was nothing on the records to show that he had teen specially promoted for averting a collision. Mr Longton : Xs it not a fact that in 1919 the apoellant found himself in a grade carrying «£2O less salary than, did the grade to which he was attached in 1918 ?—Yes. Could not an ordinary efficient railway officer acquire knowledge necessary to successful train running, if he were given reasonable opportunity?—Not every officer; especially for train running an a large district office. r W. P. Williams, general inspector, and E. »T. Lezard, audit-inspector, also gave evidence on behalf of the department. Appellant's case had only been opened when the board adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day.