Shunter's Fate: Grave Charge

NZ Truth, Issue 1030, 22 August 1925, Page 5

Shunter's Fate: Grave Charge

Are These Witnesses Grinding Axes, or Telling the Truth?

Alleged that Men Are Incompetent because 111 "trained

(tHHHE number of accidents «. ■* that have happened to shunters m various parts of the Dominion is not entirely due to the fault of the men said the Coroner (Mr. A. J. Graham) m his verdict on Thomas Carmichael ' ' but indicates that there is something radically wrong with the system. "Whether it is due to the incompetency of the shunters or the foremen m charge I am not prepared to say, as that is a matter entirely for the Department " The evidence shows that the men lack training, and that incompetent shunters are engaged m extremely dangerous worfy." The above words, uttered by Coroner Graham, of Palmerston North,.,, surely speak for themselves. They mark a new stage m the disquieting discussion on shunters' deaths. They are not ex parte. They are the words of a responsible officer. PUBLIC INQUIRY DEMANDED. Prior to the fatal accident to Thomas Carmichael while shunting at Palmerston North, there had been too many shunting accidents (some fatal) m other places, and public opinion was disturbed. Jiut this Palmerston North death, the allegations made by witnesses at the coroner's inquiry, and

In June Prime Minister Ooates, as Minister for Railways, told the House of Representatives that railway shunting was a dangerous occupation, that there had lately been more accidents than usual, and that an inquiry by a committee of experts had been instituted. In July Mr. Ooates told the House that the inquiry was a departmental one and private, and that no good purpose would be served by making it public. But the death procession continues, and the charges against the Railways Department received such publicity a few days ago through the medium of the" Coroner's inquiry at Palmerston North that it is no use trying to keep the cat m the bag any longer. The charges are startling. They must , be answered publicly.

the coroner's own summing up carry the case a great deal further. There is now a charge of speedingup superimposed upon general incompetence i — incompetence of those who command as' well as ' those 'who obey — and that combination, if it exists, .is intolerable. The question has now reached the Stage — if it had not reached it before — of commanding direct public interest. And though the Prime Minister had maintained m Parliament — some* time before ' the Carmichael inquest: — that no good purpose would be served by converting the departmental inquiry into a public inquiry, yet Coroner Graham, with this new evidence before him, says, and rightly says: I am strongly of the opinion that, m the interests of. the Railway Department and the men of the service, a public inquiry should be instituted into' the work of the shunters, more particularly with reference to the working of the Palmerston North yards. This uttei'ance was made by the coroner after hearing evidence by railwaymen who made serious complaints against their system of working stating that the incompetency of shunters was due to lack of training, and alleging that they were threatened with dismissal unless they took unnecessary risks. DELAY IN TREATMENT. The evidence given at the inquest before Mr. Graham showed that deceased was killed as a result of being crushed by the tail-fope, which it Avas stated was quite often used. Ernest Lepper, brakesman, described the accident, stating that the injured man was removed to the ticket lobby on the railway stretcher. The doctor arrived twenty minutes later. Deceased was conscious all the time. To the Coroner: Deceased was experienced, but not a capable shunter. There was no method of . training the men when incapable. They were put on as "spares" at first and then on shunting. No instructions were given m the use of the tail-rope, and the men used it at their own discretion. . , To Mr. Ongley, who represented the A.S.R.S., witness -.said, that deceased Was head of the gang, but was incompetent. Deceased had had 18 months' experience, but while that was sufficient m some cases, it. was not. m his. Before the war a shunter was supposed to have three years' experience before he was considered qualified. Witness -was learning to become a shunter, but there was nobody to teach him. Pie would be quite willing to go to classes m shunting. There were examinations m ticket-punching, but apparently a man could become a shunter without any experience at all! There were two .foremen m the yard, but neither was a competent shunter, they not having been shunters themselves. They were also not capable. of instructing shunters. '> A PICNIC OR A RIOT! Does the incompetency of those foremen ' make the work m the yard worse? — It makes it twice as hard. Have you had experience under competent foremen? — Yes, we have one this; week.- \ What is 0 -the difference?.— The difference between a picnic and a riot. Witness said that if deceased was. left alone to; do his work he would have done it all right. Deceased was very excitable, \ and when so would do his work regardless of risk. At such times he was harassed by the foremen. An accident under those foremen was not unexpected m the yard? — That is so. A few days before this,. one foreman named de Rosa was told to leave deceased alone or he would be killed? — Yes, he was. The Coroner: This particular fore- i man had harassed deceased ?— -Yes. . What attitude did the foreman adopt? — He was like a dog training a cat. Do these foremen insist on the men taking unnecessary risks?— They do. Are the men threatened with dismissal if they do not do work full of risks? — Yes. . Witness added that for the last two and a half years the shunters had been trying to .get an inquiry into shunting conditions m the Palmerston North yards. To Mr. Ongley, witness said that nothing was done to stop the bleeding during the time deceased was at the station. There was a first-aid outfit at the station, but no instruction were given for its use. Nobody attempted to use the outfit.

To the coroner, witness said that the method adopted by the foremen to deceased applied to others as well. They were continually bullyragging and were* not fit to icontrolvmen. ; What treatment do you expect to get after the ; evidence you have given today? — I don't know. lam prepared to put up 'with the consequences m order that the truth may be told. To Mr. L. A. Voltz, who appeared on behalf of the Railways Department, witness said that he had been sent out

into the yards when he had not worked a pair of points m his life. CONTINUAL HARASSING. Witness believed' foremen de Rosa and Sweeny had had no shunting experience and he ' judged their com- ; pet.ency by i.heir actions and by orders given shunters. Witness had no personal Vfeeling against the foremen, although he ■ : had had "blisters" about his work. The harassing by the foremen was continual. They were always complaining about trains being delayed if the work was not speeded up. To; Mr .Ongley, witness said that- the whole' of'che men of the Palmerston North yards', .endorsed., the opinion about the actions; of the foremen. He was not alone m his complaints. There had been no refusal to work under the foremen, but complaints had been made to the stationmaster without result. , Evidence was heard from Dr. Watson, house surgeon of the Palmerston North Hospital, to the effect that deceased's injuries consisted of a fracture of the left thigh, and death was due to shock and haemorrhage. To Mr. Ongley, witness said that it was bad treatment to have placed deceased m a cold, draughty ticket lobby. To the coroner, witness said that it was considered that at least someone competent m the use of first-aid should always be on-duty at the station. i W. W.Roberts said he was a shunter, at the. ; time of !, the accident, but had since been asked to be transferred to a ..porter?s i position; as he did not consider the yard safe to work m. He objected to the whole atmosphere of the yard. There was a distinct undercurrent of feeling against the foremen from one end of the yard to the other. He had found those two men more a hindrance than a help. ' The first thing on going on duty, one would be met with the query: "Have you had a row with So-and-So?" and going off the question was: "How have you got on to-day?" : To Mr. Ongley, witness said that when he was put on -shunting he had had no experience, but when, he accepted the position he expected to get some training, but got none. , He was "simply told to go and shUnt, and had been .appointed second m charge after one month's service. He had been told by the stationmaster that he should have \ . been fit. m two .months to take . charge of. a shunting gang. Only, once had he been told not to do a thing. KILLED TO GAIN EXPERIENCE. . To Mr. "Voltz, witness said that he did not think experience was of much service for work m the Palmerston North yards.

Shunter Must Be Killed Before He Becomes "Experienced"

Mr. Voltz: It is experience and must be of some service. The Coroner: ilt seems absolutely necessary that the men must have training before they 'are put out m the yards. The method adopted now seems to be that a man has to be killed before he becomes experienced. . It is recognised that the. .Palmerston North yards are particularly; dangerous. ' .. ■. .-....- .■'.'' : Witness then said that there was a delay occasioned by the coaching' foreman on duty, Robertson, m calling the doctor, the foreman asking unnecessary questions as to whether a medical man was. really required. This was denied m; evidence by Robertson, who said that' he personally attended to deceased's comfort. j M. J. Firth, engine driver, said that deceased was not a capable sfrunter, but he seemed to do his work better when there was no foreman on. It appeared to witness that deceased was harassed too much by de Rosa, and witness warned the foreman to leave deceased alone. De Rosa followed deceased round all day, and on several occasions he had to stop the engine to avoid an accident. Deceased became excited v when de Rosa was present and did -not seem: to know what he was doing. ' - ; HARASSING DENIED. Called by Mr. Voltz, Joseph de Rosa said that m the course of his duties he found it necessary, to keep m direct contact 1 with the men, and if he : did not speak it would mean that they would just please themselves m what they did. He had to walk round the yard and see that things "v^ent on properly, but he had never asked 'shunters to take unnecessary risks'. Mi. Ongley: You think Lepper Jrad an axe to grind? Can you find cmc man m the yard who will say you are a competent shunter?— lf they have any complaint they can make it to the proper quarters, but they seem to resent my interfering m their routine; Has : Driver Firth an axe to grind? — He has his opinion, I suppose, and?; is entitled to.it; : ' '. •? In returning a verdict of accidental death, the coroner, ' additional to ,the statements above! ,said that m view «of the evidence given by Lepper and corroborated by other witnesses whose sincerity and truthfulness he had :-no reason to doubt, it was not to be wondered at that there was "a state of Unrest existing: among the men of the railway. service. He felt that the relations existing- between 'the shunters and two of. the foremen, were not conducive to the welfare of the men. A.S.R.S; AND MINISTER. At a recent meeting of the Palmerston North branch of the A.S.R.S. (Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants) the following resolution was carried unanimously: ' "That this ■ branch of the A;S.R.S. wishes to draw public attention to the fact that for the past two years we have been demanding: a public inquiry into the s-hunting conditions m the Palmerston North yard, coupled with the attitude of the foremen. Seeing that our request has been refused, it is therefore resolved by this»meeting to ignore the Board of Inquiry as set up by the Minister of Railways on the grounds that neither the A.S.R.S. nor shunters were consulted as •= to its composition. We -therefore request that >a public inquiry open to the press as requested' by 'the society be- set up without delay to ;\ consider shunting conditions."- '' ■. ■> According to statements made m Parliament last month by Mr. Coates, the departmental committee (or board) j of-, inquiry set; up .by the. Department of Railways to inquire into shunting accidents? consists of the traffic manager at Wanganui, the assistant engineer at Auckland, and a shunter nominated by the Department (not by the A.S.R.S.). Mr. Sullivan: Wouldn't it be more satisfactory to allow the A.S.R.S. to choose a shunter to sit on the board? . Mr. Goates: Why, it's a departmental inquiry. The A.S.R.S. is certainly not managing the railways. Mr Sullivan: It, is very much interested m protecting the lives of its. members. ; Mr. Coates (sharply.) : Not more than I am, or the department is. I deny that completely. The hon. member seems to think that he is the only one who has the interests of the men at heart. So tar as I am concerned, 1 have the. interest^ of the men at heart. There was some confused talk from the Labor benches while Mr. Goates was speaking, and the Speaker called for order. AVhen the Prime Minister had sat down, Mr. P. Fraser (Wellington Central) was heard to remark: The coroner showed up the department. ■•■•'.•.

The Speaker: Order! I shall have to name the hon. member.