Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15382, 20 February 1912, Page 2

Ho said thnt tho dopartmont was prepared p to admit Mr Brown's efficiency and good c. record, o Mr Macpherson said that ho etill required Mr Piper's cvidmioo p -Mr Davidson said that tho general man- d agcr had declined to allow Mr l'ipor to r appear. In view of filial ho could not allow v Mr Piper to appwir without instructions. - He whs prepared to admit nil thnt Mr Piper could sny in favour of tho appellant. j Mr Macpherson asked what, ripht Mr Davidson hud to sajr he could not allow Mr Piper to appear.' Ho contended that Mr Davidson nail no more right to ray that than ho had. They had prepared j their ease on the assumption that any wit- j they might wish to havo would bo I called. Thn Chairman said it scorned to him as an experienced president of courts of law j that it was absolutely unreasonable for ono f fide to insist on having a witncfs prodtirwl when the other side said it admitted all his evidence. Ho suggested that a luncheon adjournment would perhaps 1m refreshing and cooling. He would not order tho department to produco a man whoso evidence, was admitted. a On resuming after lunch, Mr Macpherson i said thov had agreed to take the chairniiin'i advice and drop tho witnesses in their case. Ho went on to add further explanatiis of the meaning of the " tag," with a viow to allowing how a man might , retain hi« position by means of it. Ho ' quoted several instances in which officors ' had been receiving a salary in advanco of tho maximum allowed in that grade. Mr Davidson said thnt in order to save time he had written down tho substance of the ease as the department gave it. There wero three appeals here, two at Christchurch end two elsewhere, but tho whole seven were exactly on all fours. Tho facts ' relating to tho appeal) of Messrs J. Drown a (slatiomnaster. Burkes), P. 11. Harlland (clerk, Grey-mouth), P. .1. Rond (clerk, Climlehurclu, If Oreon (stationmastor, t Milium). V Graham (slatiomnaster, P.oss). t V.. P Moir (clerk, Duncdin), and R. J. Hueha".ai: (clerk. 'limam) were as follow:— c Messrs Wollings's and M'Govcrn's services < had li.-'ci eonlinwl to tlio locomotive and t maintenance- branches and the head oflice i of th-j department, ami for several years in j the latter they had been respectively employed on special work relative to tfio two branches named. The duties on which they had been engaged had grown in difficulty ' and ir.ipottancc, nnd, liaving received a ; traim:!'.r from which they had acquired such knowledge and experience rs tlio general manager considered .vas ol such value to the detriment as to merit the increase of ,their salaries to £210 per annum, which increasa carried with it their ivroinotioti to tirade 9. Regulation 28, made under the act, provided that nil promotions from a lower to a higher grade should be contingent inter alia, or. efficiency and suitability, and in neither of theso respects did those conditions apply to tho appellants in relation tit the positions held by Messrs Well-, ings and M'Govem; and, so far as Hegula-' t ion ■!,'; applied, tho general manager had ceitilicd that theso two officers were best entitle,'! to tlio appointments. Tho appellant') had alf been trained wholly in the Ira flic branch, in which they had given I satisfaction in Ihe dischargo of their dutios, | and when vacancies in a higher grade arose ; therein for which their CNpcricnco and knowledge qualified them their respectivo claim? for promotion would be duly considered. In the head othce of the department the oppoi(unities for promotion were few. vhilo in Ihe traffic branch they wero comparatively numerous, and with tho rapid expansion of business that was taking placo these opportunities must increase, and thcro was no rciison why any of the appellants should not qualify themselves to advance, within their own branch to a position far ahead of Messrs Wellings and M'Govern, neithe- oi whom cculd lie considered for any petition in the traffic branch, of which they hf.il no knowledge or experience. Meanwhile none of the appellants suffered any disability or injury, present or prospective hv the promotion of Messrs Wellings and M'Govern to grade 9, it being quito impossible for any of them to take up the duties of theso officers without long previ--1 ous training te lit them, and that was olivionsiy irfracfieablo If it was urged that ' when any position which was occupied by ! an officer who had been specially trained to ■ fill it giew in importance and valiie, and in coixepucnec merited the payment, of a 1 higher salary and removal to an advanced 1 grade, every member who was placed higher in the clrffilicition list than the one then 1 occupying the particular |»sitioii, should be given the- opportunity to prove his fitness to perform it? duties, tho answer was that such a, course could only result in the complete disorganisation of the department's staff and general degeneration of effioioncy. There wtuld, under such a condition, ho no 1 recompense for exceptional diligenco and aptil'.do and only discouragement for those 1 who sought t>. m'ak>! themselves thoroughly cajiablo and efficient in their particular ' spiw.-cs of duty. Tho procedure followed ' in the ease of Messrs Wellings and M'fiovern was in no way exceptional, ns eases of a similar hind occured in every ' yenr'< clrssification. Mr Davidson added . that ho had n list to Fhow a number of ' similar promotions to whioh no exception had b«?n taken. In response to Mr Gray, lie said lie wtuld not undertake to say what 1 Mesic We'lir.gs's and M'Govcrn's duties '• were. They lad leen specially trained'for ' their work for years. H. OUBKX'S CABE. ' In the appeal of Mr H. Green, piation--1 master, Milburn, Mr Macpherson, for tho 5 appellant, said that tho grounds of the ' appeal in ties case wero precifcly simi'ar ' to those in Mr Brown's, and if tho department admitted that Mr Green had efficient r and palisfactory service and a blameless 5 record in the positions ho had filled, ho was prepared to let this cvvo dand upon the fact's and arguments admitted and 5 olfcred in thb previous case. Mr Davitlson said he was quito prepared to assent to this course, which was uccord- " ingly agreed to. j Tho Chairman said it was unlikely iJal ' any decision would bo come to until all the cases had boon heard. 1 k. r. Mom's AITF..U,. , Mr Ennis opened tho case in which K. P. Moir, of the traffio manager's office, r Duncdin, also appealed against tho promotion of Messrs WoMings and M'Govcrn. Ho £aid that the circumstances we.ro nonioF what difTerent in this case,' in that the ap- ' pellant had actually doniS the work that " tlieso men who had been promoted wore j doing. He argued as had boon dono in the ', previous caro that Mr Moir had lost the seniority to which he was entitled. Tho ' work in his |wition ha<l increased very ! considerably, and he had n record of sor- . vioo such :w was po*scs'o;l by fow of depo.rtment's officers. Mi 1 Knnis outlined Mr r Moir's career, and proceeded to read Nevcral highly euloiristio references to Mr Moir j mado by Ins sunerior ollioers. I 1 Mr Davidson rau«-?el the point a« to how • this official information had boon obtained. 3 Mr Knnis iwid that Mr Moir had proparcel the matter for his own case, ami if Mr Davidson questioned him ho would | doubtless find out how tho information had boon obtained. Mr Davklt-on: I would liko to find this out, for if Mr Moir has been ransacking tho fi'.es of tho department for tho purposo of working up tho oaso nertice will bavo to be taken of it. Mr Moir: I hope thoro is no suggestion tlml I havo paid for tho letters in any way. The Chairman said he did not think the nppfallant hnd done anything thnt could bo tikon exception to. Theoretically, Mr Davidson was right, but it was u matter that he thought should not ho pushed to an extrome. Mr Ennis siid he nixle-slocd Mr Pi|«'r was prepared to give rather important evidence, as to Mr Moir's ability to do tiw work done by Messrs Wellings anil M'Govcrn in the head office. Mr David.tin said ho would not admit that the appelUnt was able to do that work, and denied that Mr Piper rau'd be in a |xv<ition to (,'ivo evidence on sit-h a point. Tho Chairman (to Mr Knn'sl; Do you really seriously propose that lioermse of a paltry £10 a year rise given to |.he«e clerks that they should bo put a-'ido nnd other I two put in? Mr Ennis: I do. sir. I consider Moir is entitled to promotion to trade 9 Wore Mrnsrs Willing and M'liovern Iteferrimr asam to the nuestinn of Mr Piper's evidence, Chairman said th> first principle of evidence was that it must be relevant to the <|iiosl ; on in de-putc. 'lhem was no rpioption in dispute hero! Mr Knnis mid thcro was dispute ,is (o Mr Moir's ability. Th-°> Oiairman: Mr Paper's evidence could not he of valuo an In (Jiat. Unelor the ci remittances he would not order Mr Pier's appearance. If he came in of !ii.o'.vn aceord they would tost the va.'ue of his evidence. He was d'Rpofed to consider tli« question as if Mr Moir were able, if need be, to do the work in question after n littlo time. The diflieultv Mr Knnis had to overcome wa? this: Why in the nan-e of common phonld these two mp.n in Wellinston be disnlaeed hecaute iho depanment gave them £10 a year? Mr Knnis said it. would not !:■» recesw,ry to displace them at all. ,i 6 Mr Moir could be promoted to the 9th grade and left in Durr"din. The Chairman Jfiked how many more would be concerned if this was done. Ho suggested that tho appellants formulate a

fcliomo. by Trhtnh thoi'r ideas could bo carried out and forward it to tho hoard (or consideration. At tjio clofo of the proaiodinss .Mr Maophcrsori thanked tho chairman for his conduct of tho eases. Ho had given them wido range to roam in and iuul treated thorn very liberally.