RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13861, 26 March 1907, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

.APPEAL AGAINST REDUCTION BY LEADING CARPENTER. The South Island Railway Appeal Board resumed its sitlings yesterday, when the appeal of C. E. Best against .reduction from leading ewpentev to carpenter was taken. The appeal, was heard bv District Judge Ilaselden (ch airman), Mr J. Gray (representing the first division), and Mr J. H. •Jones, of Addington Workshops (representing the second division). Mr ll'Villy represented tlio department, and Mr C. E, Holmes (of Timaru) conducted the case for the appellant.

This case was the outcome of certain friction at the Hillside Workshops last year, which resulted in an exhaustive inquiry being held by Mr Widdowson, S.M., and Mr Beattie; chief mechanical engineer. In consequence of that inquiry tile appellant was reduced from the position of leading carpenter to that of carpenter, and suffered reduction in wages to the extent of Is 6d per day. His reduction was based on the ground that he had used improper terms when speaking of the foreman of his department. Mr 1 Holmes pointed out that in addition to the decrease in pay of 9s per week the reduction carried with it reduoed superannuation. The appellant was vocommended for promotion on April 20, 1906, by the foreman, and this was in the faxx) of a report of March 21 previously that he was not fit for his position. He (Mr Holmes) wished to call Mr Beattie to give evidence.

The Chairman said he felt disinclined to call Mr Beattio to give evidence, as ho had been in the position of a judge at a previous inquiry. Mr Holmes (continuing) said that, in July of 1905 the appellant- was advised to exchange with leading carpenter Thomson, of Invercargill, and was told the exchange was made to suit the requiremenls and exigencies of the department. He went to Invercargill on August 1, and two days, later was advisod to return to Hillside. Finally, on August 7, he received instructions io remain at InveicaririU. About a month later, on September 10. lie received notice lo report himself at Duncdin, and on the 11th of that month lie reported himself to the Hillside Workshops manager. The following day an inquiry was held at the workshops, tlic result of which was that appellant was informed that ho was reduced for having made use of improper language when referring to the foreman of his department. Mr Holmes contended that the evidence taken at the inquiry by Messrs Widdowson and Beattie was not SO, tisfaotory. The Chairman said the commission was prepared to hear argument that the evidence taken did not justify the conclusion arrived at.

it was agweil that, no fresh evidence should bo allied, and the lengthy typewritten evidence taken at the previous in(|iiiry. was read over. , Mr Holmes said that, the reply received !>v the appellant to his query for the reason of his reduction was "owing to having made use of improper terms when referring lo the foreman, such conduct being, calculated to affect the discipline of the workshops." Mr Holmes honestly thought the punishment. was ridiculously severe for the offence committed. 'L'o rodnco a man by Is M per day.'probablv for a considerable length of time, for swearing, was hard, and he thought that the matter miirht- well have been dealt, with by the inflict ion of a small line. Only a certain uumbcr of the men heard the improper language. The majority of the evidence wa.s of an independent nature, and ho thought the weight of evidence was in the appellant's favour. Mr M'Villy said he entirely disagreed with Mr Holmes that the weight of evidence was in appellant's favour. There wore 110 less than 17 witnesses who had sworn positively liiat tliev had heard Mr Best use certain expressions, which were undoubtedly derogatory lo the discipline of Iho workshops. In ;i workshop liko Hillside, where they lintl something like 500 1110.11. ihev must hrre discipline. If llie lending liands, who were immediately in control of these men, were going to make use of such language as Air Best had made use of—not to one man, hut to a considerable number of men—in disparagement of their foreman, and likely to bring those men into disrepute and to impair the discipline of the workshops, that ofi'ence should ho taken particular notice of. The punishment lmd not been as severe as Mr Holmes would lend the court to suppose Comparatively speaking, it had been light. If the alienee was a. serious one. tho punishment had to be severe. The appellant, had now to •show the department in a practical way that ho was sorry, and that ho was going to profit by the lesson lie was receiving, and that if he got another trial he would not offend again in the saute way. In reply to Mr Gray, Mr M'Villy said tho appellant' was shifted to Invereargill in tho ordinary course. The inquiry and the subsequent reduction took place after his transfer from Dunodin. This concluded iho caw, which was tho last to come before the board at its present sitting.