RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13858, 22 March 1907, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

ALLEGED WRONGFUL DISMISSAL. . Tho South Island Railway Appeal Board opened its sittings at the Railway Station yesterday morning, before District Judge Haselden (chairman). Messrs J. Gray (representing the First Division) and Williams (representing the Second Division). Tho first easo taken was an appeal by Wm. M'Leod, formerly a cadet in the service at Waikouuiti Station, against alleged wrongful dismissal in consequence of the derailment that occurred there on December 24- last. year. Mr R. W. M'Viily represented the department and Mr James ilea appeared lieforo tho hoard on hohalf of the appellant. Mr M'Viily said the case was -the result of appellant having lowered the semaphore signal at WaiL'ouaitl on December 24 last for a goods train which was coming ill from

I'almerstoti. Tlio result was that, tlm engine' anil two waggons were 'derailed at

the facing points leading to the crossing siding at the 'north end of the station. Tho entire lino was fouled by the derail-

ment, and the driver had his ankle so' hadly sprained that he was off duty for 18 days. Hilt for fho fortunate circumstance that a. loop line was available for traffic tho whole of tho traffic on the main lino would have been utterly disorganised., and at. a particularly busy time 100. The northbound train had previously arrived, and some shunting operation* had heeii in progress, but evidently the porter had neglected to close the north facing .points, with the result indicated. When fho driver of tho train from Palmorston noticed that fho points wore "half cock," ho applied tho brake, but was unable to stop soon'enough. The accident was due to the fneh thai; M'Leod, without instructions and on his own responsibility, had pulled t-lio signal

'or thai train to approach without taking trouble to ascertain whether tho points

,'ero closed or not. Tho Chairman: Whose duty was it to

make the signal'/ Mr M'Villy': The etatiomnaster's, or any person authorised by him. 'fho Chairman: I|. appears that M'Leod admitted the facts to.the department, hut said the punishment v.as too severe. Mr M'Villy «uid that, as far as this was concerned it was similar to the punishment meted out in similar eases for the last_ 18 months or two years, the department having found that, light treatment was not sufficient.

James MacMicliacl Drcnnan, enginedriver, said that on the 2'tth December ho had driven tho morning' train duo in Wnikounili nt 12.25 p.m., at which time lie reached the facing points. He observed the position of the sianal. which was standing set at "dear" for him to enter the station. In consequence of that witness came towards the station. Ho expected his train to bo stopped on the main lino short, cf the ■station, but when lie got near to .the facing points lie saw the switch of Ihe points standing at half open. The road was not. clear with the points in that condition, and the signal should bavo been "danger." Witness then immediately applied tho brake, making an "emergency" application. He was, however, unable to

stop (lie train 'before tho engine and the first two waggons became derailed. Tho engine then stool between two roads. One waggon was lying on the through loop on the west side. The engine was lying between tho cast loop and the main line, Tho three reads were completely blocked. Witness did not. examine the points after tho derailment. The rest, of the train remained on the main line. With the assistance of a gang of platelayers and the station and train staffs this portion of thu train was pushed up the line, and the two' waggons cleared. Witness injured . his ankle and leg as a. result, of the accident',and was off duty for 18 days. By Mr Mce: Witness calculated, as the signal 'was clear, that ho would be able to stop before the station. lie had such control of tho train that tic could have stopped it short of the station. Re-examined: Had the signal been at the ''danger" position, the accident would liot have happened. Tho signal being "clcar," be was misled as to the condition of the road.

By Mr Williams: Hl> was distant, about

the length of an engine and a-half from the facing points beforo lie noticed anything wrong. Win. Cameron, guard on the train, gavo corroborative evidence. David Wassal Vemberton, ex-station-msstcr at Waikouaiti. s-iiil thai for the train ir. question M'Lcod pulled the signal. He would not eay whether lie instructed jl'Leod or not. "Witness was busy at Ihe time. When M'licod was relieving witness lie would pull the signal on his own responsibility. Cross-examined: There wore, two other hands employed at the station. The cadet, would Inko charge when witmtn was absent. Witness was also pestmaster and telegranhist, and when he was engaged M'l.eod and 'the porter would liuv«> io do the station work, M'Lcod also assisted in ihe .post ofllce. It was witness's duty to see that the line was clear, and. give the signal with regard to the (rain approaching at 12 o'clock; If witness was busy he would It'll M'Locd to give the signal, and that meant that he was to see that the points were clear before doinu so. Tf M'l/>od was not there lie would tell ihe porter. Ho ecyisidered that M'Lcod was capable of undertaking IliU duty. M'Lcod had been HE months at Waikouniti. He-examined: During the lime he was at Waikouaiti M'Lcod had had practiia! experience cf working the points and signals. I'roni his personal observation witnrss would say that be was perfectly competent. lie was a good shunter.

Alexander Alfred Cullen, junior porter ft Waikouaiti at the time of the derailment. said that M'Lcod had pulled the signal,. M'Lcod had not n<3ketl witness any questions concerning the position at the points.

By Mr Mee: It wss witness's duty to lock tho. points. ' He was in tho habit of doing so. The practice adopted on this occasion ivas tho usual one. No inquiryhad been made prior to tho train coming in as to whether the points were locked or otherwise. Witness would bo naturally expected to lock them, but on this occasion ho forgotto'do so. He had beon two years and nine months in tho sorvice.

Mr Mee, in opening the case for tho appellant, said the appeal was made.against' the decision on the ground that the punishment was excessive and not waranted by tho circumstances surrounding the accident. The appellant had been a cadet at Waikouaiti, a tablet station, and the stationmaster had placed him in -the position of signalman, a position thnt ho was unfitted for by oxporioncc. Tho derailment was not brought about by the neglect of M'Lcod, but by the noglect of three qualified men. First of all the stationmaster neglected to allot tho duties properly, by failure of whioh ho himself was personally responsible. In tho regulation the' appellant as a. cadet was not mentioned as being responsible. The intention was to debar him" even from taking charge of a station temporarily. Tho department was undev an obligation to give a cadet a good training, and to place liim at a station where he would lie under good supervision

jTho Chairman read portion of a letter received from Jl'Lsod, which stated: "Tho derailment was caused by my pulling tho signal and neglecting to ask the porter who had been shunting if he hud looked the points." M'Lcod had mado that statement on December 25.

_ Mr Mee said that M'Lccd was at tho station to receive his proper training—to havo been kept inside would have- been his place. Tho accident did not arise, out of his duties as a cadet. . The stationmaster put him -there, and when -the lad failed the department brought the evidence of three men, all fitted l to do the work in a better degree, to give ovidenco against him.

Appellant said ho was 19 years of age, and had been between four and live years in the service, and over 15 months at Waikouaiti For many months lie had been under Mr'KeMy at Waikouaiti, but ho had never been given charge of the elation during that, tittle. Mr Kelly had personally supervised the work at the station during tho arrival and departure of trains. Mr Kelly had novev allotted to witness tho charge of the station. Mr Pembcrton had instructed him on tho morning of the 24th December to pull tho signal, but he did not tell him to see that, tho points were right. Mr Pemberton said " Tho train is coming; pull the signal," or words to that effect. Witness carried out tho instructions.

The Chairman: "Why did you pull tho signal without finding out the lino was cleaT? ■'

Witness: I just carried out tho instructions of the stationmaster. I did what I considered my duty. As regards the accident, I do not consider that I had any responsibility," as I merely, obeyed tho stationmaslcr's orders.

The Chairman: Why did you say in your letter, then, that ihe derailment was caused by your neglecting to ask the porter if ho had locked the points?— That was practically dictated 1 to -mo by Mr Matheson, traffic inspector. He told me nothing would como of the matter as far as I was conccrned.

■Witness, continuing, said ho was not in the habii cf examining the points. Ho took it. for granted that the'points would he clear, and that whoever worked them would leave them so Tlmt had always been his practice Witness had' never been examined regarding, his duties of signalling bv Mr Pcmberton. The points in question were about 130 yards, from the station.

By Mr M'ViSly: Witness know that, night trains went through, but ho did not coneider it his duty to examine the points in the morning to see that they had not, been left open overnight. Ho know Rule 2, and had seen Rule 5 of the rule book. The latter stated tliat a servant's first and most important duty was to provide for tho safety of the public. / ■ ' ' Re-examined: He did not consider that Rule 2 did not. apply to him as a cadet. Mr Mee said he had no other witnesses to call. Messrs ICelly and Aldridge, under whom appellant had worked, had been asked to Vive evidence as to appellant's, previous conduct. Mr M'Villy said this was a specific offence, and consequently the department had taken' the view that unless iho evideneo was directly relevant there was no reason why !:• should be saddled with t.he expense of bringing these witnesses before tho board.

'l'hc Chairman said he would like to hear some such evidence. He looked more to the practical than to fhc technical side of these appeals. However, as far as he was concerned, he was afraid that he could not recommend the Government to retain 'the services rif a man who, although not found guilty of a specific offence, was, judging from his general course of conduct, unfit, to bo a, railway servant. Ho was very much dissatisfied with this youijg man's explanation regarding the manner in which ho hoisted ihe'signal timo after time without examining 'the points.

After further argument the board retired to confer.