RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15101, 25 March 1911, Page 14

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

HILLSIDE WORKSHOPS CASE. SUGGESTIONS -OF SPEEDING-UP. A sitting of tho South Island. Railway Anneal Board was held at Dunedin yesterday. Tho board comprised Messrs W. K Haseldeu, S.M. (chairman), J. Gray (hist division), and J. H. Jones (second division). Mr H. Davidson appeared on behalf of tho department, and Mr R»Hampton on.behalf of tho appelant Tho caso before-tho board was an appeal by Peter Ireland, who is employed as a' carpenter in J>he Hillside Worwshops, against his reduction from first to sccond grade. Mr Davidson, in opening the caso for the department, said appellant was engaged as a casual carpenter in 1900. la 1908 he was placed on the permanent list as tt fast graidc carpenter, but 'pitee-. •quently was not recommended as b?ing suitable for the grado he occupied, and after being given sufficient trial and several warnings his work was reported on as still unfavourable. As a consequence tho general maniager had reduced him in accordance with- tho regulations from a first grado to a second grade carpenter. Tho first witness called by the depart-: ment was Sidney Percival Evans, at present workshops manager at_ Addington and formerly manager at Hillside. In July, 1908, witness had reported, favourably in reeaid to appcdlant, but he had not then had an opportunity of personally judging of his capabilities. In April, 1909, witness 'had to report unfavourably in regard to anne Us-nt and as a result ho was taken off bench work and placed on general work. Advense reports were again made in regard to appellant's work. Ho was very slow, and wanting in energy, and did not aidopt tho most efficient methods. Fault was also found with tho quality cf his work. Leading-carpenter Johnson had obiccted to havinsr appellant working under him, as he could not get tho work out of him that he expected to got. Mr Holder had also drawn witness's attention to IrcJand'6 slowness and inability to perform the work allotted him'. Witness would class Ireland as an average second graidb worker. In waggon repairing work appellant delayed tho gang. He could do as cood work as anyone if. lie tool: long enough, but the quantity was just as esseirtral as quality. Edward L. W. Haskins, who succeeded the previous witness as workshops manager at Hillside, described the greater part of appellant's work as bad and unworkmanlike. He was very slow, and personal observation showed that tho foreman's reports were justified. On one occasion tho holes for the tic rods of a waggon wero bored out of line, and .it was Ireland's duty to sco that they were true. Tho effect of their not being straight was to draw the framo of tho waggon out of the true, an(l this would most likely causo a derailment. It was a serious matter. On April •'9, 1910, witness liad occasion to forward a letter to appellant reprimanding him over his work, and on November 23, 1909, ho was written to and informed that ho was to bo given another three months' trial, and that as ho was receiving first grade pay he must do first grade work, or bs reduced-. In April, 1910, Ireland 1 was again informed that ho was too slow, and his work inefficient. During the past 18 months ho liad been absent a great deal from sickness. Ho was not a first grade tradesman, and he did not consider him a good second grade man. He might bo an average second grade man. The Chairman: Then the average second grade worker is bad? Witness: In my idea. The averago second grado worker was not fit to keep in tho service.

Mr Jonos: Did his sicknoss conduce to his slowness for the time being? Witness: Yes. In somo way. Henry Francis Holder, foreman carpenter, Hillside, said in making hia annual review he had not been rible to report that Ireland was a fiist grado carpenter. He was too slow, both at making window sash frames and then when placed on an order for 100 waggons ho was again too slow and did not give satisfaction. Ho was always behind the other men, some of whom had objected to work with him for tho reason that he was too slow. Ojra mechanic said ho would sooner havo an- apprcntico as a mate. He took 881 hours to make a stationery cabinet, when witness's estimated time for tho work was 48 hours. * Ho' took six'and throe-quarter hours to mako a typewriting table, and it was not, fit to send out. Another man had to fill tho order, amd made the table in four and a-half hairs. Ireland's table was worth 12s 6d, and[ it cost 18s to mako owing to liia snoding four logs. If witness were to accept aproollant's standard of time and work orders would go elsewhere than Hillside.

Mr Hampton questioned tho reliability of the limo sheets handed in by witness in relation to the two jobs referred to. It was well known tiat time sheets were absolutely unreliable.

Mr Jones said that personally ho did not attach any value whatever to time sheets.

Witness said ho could swear to tho time sheets being absolutely correct.

Donald Mlvillop, workshops foreman at Invorcargill, and formerly at Hillside, said appellant was very slow, and did not give satisfaction. _ Ho was also of a disajTseab'.o deposition, and witness haj dtecfinod to have him at Invercargiil when it was suggested he should bo transferred there. Gcorgo Johnson, leading carpenter at Hillside, and now superannuated, said appellant haxl worked under him repairing waggons. Tho work he performed was good enough, but, not Ijoing accustomed to it, he did not perform it as quickly aa witness would havo liked Witness "told

Mt Evans and' Mr Holder that he would rather not have Ireland under htm. Ho could not bo told how to carry out his work the same as another man. He was not ns good as tho Fccond-grado carpenters who had been on the work for years. Ho preferred to do things in his own style. Edward J. Jenkins, loading carpenter, Hillside, said appellant did not prove, himself capable of doing first-grade work. Ho was an average - scoood-grado man. Men had objected lo work with him apparently lxxsauso lie did not do his share. lkrtx>rt W. Turner, leading carpenter, Hillside, said he did. not oonsider appellant should bo in tho first gradh. His work was not' up to first-grade standard. Evidence was also given by Ernest Alfred Edwards, first-grade carpenter, Hillside, who said he had to do nearly all tho work himself when working with Ireland on carriage windows, and that " everyone in tho shops knew that Ireland was too slow."

Thomas Millar Lawson, first-grade carpisiter, Hillside, stated that appellant could not compete with tho other men who were repairing waggons.

To Mr Jonts: There was no undue hustling in tho shops. Mr Hampton said ho intended to call evidence as to hustling and racing in the shops. Andrew Wiiliam Mercer, first-grade carpenter, said ho had to do more than Iris share of tho work v/".on mated with Ireland, although ho (witness) was then in tho second grada Hugh Muir, formerly carpenter at Hillside, and now drill instructor for tho Defence Department, said- Ireland, with whom he had worked, was inferior to the other first-grade men. Witness had asked the foreman not to place appellant on the same work with him, as ho would bo a •handicap to him. Mr Hampton said' ho placed no value whatever on tho evidenoo of the last several witnesses, who ranked tJie same as appellant. Ho could have called half a dozen, witnesses of tho same calrbro himself, but had no intention of so doing. Continuing, he said ho had to complain that ho had applied to the general manager for information in reference to tho disrating of appellant, tho reasons, and so forth, but had merely been informed that appellant had been reduced from flret grade to second grado owing to his being adversely reported on and considered l unfit to ho ranked in tho first grade. In ordinary common. British justice appellant liad a right to sec the reports forwarded' in regard to him, and which had resulted in Ihis being disrated. Was a man's character to be. snatched away behind his back? Mr Dandson said appellant had Tcceivcd four _ different communications in regard to his position. Appollant then gave evidence. He said ho .hod becri 11 years and three months in tho service. He liad beeii in the employ of Messrs Robin and Co., and then with two ooachbuilding firms in London, and on returning joined Messrs Hordcrn and White. From there lie wont" to the Hillside Workshops. Ho had also worked at Addington. He explained the work he had dono in connection with waggon. L 419. He had been sent to work out in tho yard when it was raining. Mr Holder's attitude towards him was dogmatic. He had never worked with Mcroer or Muir. Mr Hampton: Do you know anything of pace-making in those shops? Witness: In my opinion one man is pitted against another in waggon-building. He had always endeavoured to do his best, and had kept a first class kit of tools. Mr Hampton handed in testimonials rereceived by appellant from private firms. Evioence 'was then called for appellant. Edward Henry White, now building contractor, and formerly carpenter at Hillside, where he was engaged for a period of 10 years, said lie had worked with Ireland for a considerable' length of time, and had always found Kuri eager to do his share of the work. Ho was a, very fair workman, and was up to tho. averago standard existing throughout the whole shop. Ho was equal to any number of men who were receiving first grade pay. , Mr Hampton: Do you know whether waggon men are pitted against each other? Witness: I do, to imy sorrow. Mr Hampton: Is there -such a thing as racing in the building of these waggons?— There is. It is done in-this way The Chairman here interjected. They were not thero to diverge' into an inquiry in regard to racing in the shops. Mr Hampton Said" similar questions had already been put to ■ witnesses with the opposite effect. •,

The Chairman: ,It has no bearing on the question. • v, '

Mr Hamptoin It' has a, bearing on the question. Continuing,' witness said he had been asked on. ono , occasion- to take Ireland's place on' a waggon, but he did not know what, it was for. Murray Gladstone Thomson, retired railway sarvant after-28'years' ssrvicc at Hillside, said - ho, had been carpenter and leading carpenter, and sometime acting foreman. He found Ireland a fairly good ■tradesman,- anu'.he was quite satisfied he was fully competent. to :be graded as a first grade carpenter. Witness referred to the incident related by Mr Haskrns, wliero appellant had' not'driven the holes for the tio rods of a waggon as they should have been. It was not- Ireland's fault altogether. This work, under the orders of Mr Holder, had boon carried out in a different mannor from that which had formerly been the case, the driving of the holes being done when t,ho framing was in position, instead of on the benoh. The result was that the augur ran against the ,grain of the wood, which could not be prevented, and it was only when the tie rods were fastened up that the defect was detected. Mr Holder saw this, and immediately went to the manager and reported Ireland. Continuing, witness said; " I wfl9 annoyed at this,- and the following day sarcastically remarked to Holder in connection with another incident, ' Oo and tell the manager that.' Holder told me to go and mind my own business, as he had an object in view, and that was to reduce Ireland. Those were the words he used, or as near to them as I can remember."

Mr Davidson: Will your swear to that? Witness: I will 6wear to it Mr Davidson: I will ask for an adjournment to refute this. Tlio Chairman said the explanation given by witness showed clearly how the frame of tlio waggon was thrown out of the straight. Appellant said ha had taken precautions to prevent the augur running, but it still ran, although the defect could not be detected until after the tie roda were put through. Formerly he had no difficulty with the tie rods.

The board at this stage adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning, Mr Davidson intimating that he would call evidence to rebut the serious statement attributed by the last witness to Mr Holder.