RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13859, 23 March 1907, Page 12

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

ALLEGED INSUFFICIENT PROMOTION. Tho South Island Railway Appeal Board resinned its sittings at. the Railway Station yesterday morning before District Judge Ilascklen (chairman), and Messrs .1. Gray (First Division) and Williams (Second Division), David Wallace, goods agent at Dunedin, appealed against his present position on the D 3 list. Appellant said he sought the jurisdiction of the board at this time much on the advico and action of the department, inasmuch as ho felt that justice had not been meted out to him in his promotion from grade 5 to <n'adc 4- of the classification o: officers. Appellant then read his address to the board, which dealt fully with bis position in the service from May, 1895, when lie held tho position of jvorking manager of the New Zealand Midland Railway Company, to when he accepted Government service. His ability to fill the position was evidently recognised by the Government, judging by correspondence lie had received through' the late Primp Minister. Up to tho date of seizure of the railway by the Government he had held the position of traffic manager, and then ho was transferred to Dunedin to take the position he now held as goods agent at £300 per annum, coal, and lighting. In 1395 his position on. D 3 list was that of traffic manager, and in the same list for 1897 tho goods agent at Christchurch and himself v:cro placed togothcr in that order, and this was' continued until the list was discontinued in 1902, when he discovered that several other officers had been placed before him. Ho was subsequently notified that he would bo in order to place his ease before tho board. Ho had ueen unsuccessful as far as the department was concorncd. All tho other mien had been treated in accorcdanco with the promises made them, and after 12 years' service he was in receipt of £355 per annum—he had only been awarded an increase of £5 per annum,—and having regard to the increased oost of living he did not think his salary was equal to what "it was before. Mr AV;iilaco went on to speak of the enormous increase of business in tho goods oliice, and to tho reduction in working expenses. While the station had an increased staff tho working expenses were less by nearly £5000 than those of Christchurch office, while moro hands wcro employed. Ho knew his work had been sutisfuctory, and he submitted ho had earned the right to promotion altogether apart from the original promiso made. Notwithstanding this, bis claims had been 'set aside, and Mr J. Armstrong, whoso name had been below his on D 3 list, was now graded above him. He assumed that some ulterior motive in

nn unknown gua-rter hud projudiciously and unfairly affccted his prospects in the service. Ho did not care whether lie hnd the position of traffic manager or not so long as ho had the grade.' The department had graded a junior man higher, and left him standing. Mr Jl'Villy said that by going into all this ancient history appellant, had merely confused the position. In 1905 appellant was No. 4 on the grade 5 scale, and Mr Armstrong was No. 10. This year Mr Armstronf had ])een promoted to grade 4. Mr Wallace wai now No. 3 on grade 5, and he was appealing against Mr Armstrong., being placed above hiin. All the ancient history quoted did not affect the question one iota. The department maintained that every promise made had been kept as far as appellant was conccrned. When the Government decided to take over the railway the question arose as to taking Mr Wallace into the service. He could not bo retained as working manager at Stillwater. There was not the business to warrant it, and Mr Wallace was shifted, being appointed goods agent at Duncdin at a salary of £350. It was really a more important position than that which he held on the Coast. Ho would remind the board that the D 3 lift a few years ago did not show ilio relative position ot the officers in tho scrvico that one rank bore to others. The department considered that appellant was well paid in his department. Although he had not been promoted in position he had received more pay. Appellant: I call the general manager. Mr M'Villy said the general manager was not present, and if his evidence was to be taken it would have to be on commission. Appellant said he wanted io ask Mr Ronayne various questions with regard to an interview between them in 1902, when an assurance was given to appellant, who had been advised then that his position was all right. Knowing Mr Ronaync as ho knew him on the Coast, appellant took his word, and felt justified in leaving the matter in his hands. Time went on, however, and he got no satisfaction. The Chairman said he did not see how Mr Ronr.yne's evidence coyld alFect the appeal. Mr (tray asked if it was necessary to go farther hack than the 1005-6 list. Mr M'Villy said the matter of classification was one of training. Regulation 35 set forth that the. senior man on the list should bo placed first, if the general manager certified that he was suitable for a certain position. Mr Wallace was a very good officer where he was, but in anodic? position he might bo absolutely lost. Alexander Grant, traffic superintendent, said that appellant's duties had always been carried cut. in a highly satisfactory manner, and under certain conditions he would have no hesitation in testifying as to appellant's efficiency 'to bo promoted from tirade 5 to Grade 4. Mr Armstrong, by reason of his special training in the district office, had become expert at duties that Mr Wallace could not, undertake. If it was a question <-f making a choice for a traffic managership, and witness considered it was appellant's "turn," be would certainly recommend him. If witness was general manager lie would feel Bound to accept Mr Armstrong. If lie had to make a selection between Mr Armstrong and appellant for a managership lie would select tho former on account of his larger experience. As a general rule tlio man who was highest on the list was given a trial in the position. It was a question of whether he could perform the duties. Witness could not speak too highly ot tho manner in which tho work ill the Duncdin goods office .had been carried out. Tho Chairman said that, looking at the, matter from a legal point of view, be .did not see bow the beard could interfere. Tho board might be of opinion that the appellant was a most efficient officer and (hat his salary should lie raised, but it was only an expression of opinion. Appellant: That would bo a finding, your Honor. The Chairman: I should think that the board has no power to make a finding that J your salary should be raised. Appellant: I follow that you cannot command? The Chairman: Wo cannot even rf.commond that your salary should be raised. It is outsido our functions altogether. After further argument the Chairman intimated that the board would reserve its decision.

APPEAL AGAINST DISMISSAL. After huioli, when the appeal by 'L 0. M'lfardie, machinist at Hillside 'Workshops, against dismissal for drunkenness was taken, Mr Williams's place on t'ho beard was taken by Mr J. 11. Jones. Mr ll'Villy said the position was that on 16th November last M'Hardic was arrested in Dunedin for being imcloi' t.hc influence of iiquor and was ordered to appear before tho court the day following;. He wont on duty on the 17th, and at 9.30 a.m. obtained leavo to attend to somo private business It appeared that lio was that morning coi:vie ted of the offence and fined 10s or 48 hours' imprisonment. In extenuation appellant. said ho had been ordered to take whisky and quinine for a cold. The department did not consider that a man arrested for drunkenness was fit for the service, and M'Hardie's services were simply dispensed with. Mr C. K. fiolmes, who appeared for appellant, said tho offence was admitted, but he considered that when a nersou was fined the matter was fully dealt with. Appellant's name had not appeared in the papers, and evidence would bo tendered to show his good character. Such punishment was not provided for by the regulations, which made no rule as to what happened out of working hours. It would bo proved that appellant was suffering from a severe cold at the time, and the whisky and quinine had )>cen proscribed. When arrested appellant was very quiet, and did not make himself obnoxious in any way. Ho was merely shut un in the watehhousc for a couple of hours. He had commenced work in tho service at 16 years of ago, at 2s 6d per day, and had worked himself up for nine or ten years until ho received 8s per day. He had a wife and three children depending upon hint. Mr Holmes called George Richardson, workshops foreman. who stated thnt appellant had never previously given any ground for complaint in respect of imbibing too much liquor. Ap pellant had attended to his work well. Cross-examined: Ho knew of no other case wliero an employee had been arrested for drunkenness. The offence was a serious one, and deserved serious punishment. Bv the Chairman: Witness had told Mr M*Villy that he considered the dismissal of appellant was too severe a- punishment.

.Tolin Cartun (foreman in tho fitting shop), Jolm Robertson {foreman of tho waggon and car shops), and Samuel Nicholson (foreman of the toiler shop) gave evidence as to appellant's behaviour, vvbic.li was favourable: and Constable Fox testified as to his condition when arrested on the night in question. The court retired to consider its findings.