CONDUCTOR’S APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18876, 31 May 1923, Page 10

CONDUCTOR’S APPEAL

CORPORATION'S DECISION UPHELD. The Tramway Appeal Board, consisting of Messrs J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., 1\ J. Townshend, and J. Hunter, gave its decision yesterday morning in the appeal of K. J. Collins, tram conductor, against his dismissal for alleged insobriety. Mr J. B. Callan appeared for the appellant and Mr Barrowelough for the City Corporation. Reference is made in the judgment to the xulo providing summary dismissal, irrespective of service and record, for insobriety. Apart from thi3, the board claims, the nature of the service is such that any degree of intoxication on the part of either motorinan or conductor might involve it in such serious consequences that summary dismissal would be justifiable at law. The judgment adds also that very careful consideration has been given to the evidence in all its bearings, and it is of opinion that Collins was under the influence of liquor when ho presented himself lor duty, and that his dismissal was accordingly justifiable. In dealing with questions of a man's sobriety it is a common experience to have bodies of reputable witnesses expressing diverse views. This is often explained by the dift'erenco of circumstances .under which the uiaji is seen. An intoxicated man, especially one iu a slight degree of intoxication, does not continuously exude manifestations of insobriety. A man may present one aspect to some arid a different aspect to others with the lap3e of but little time. This is recognised in the reported decisions of the higher courts, in oases, in particular, of supplying liquor to a man in a state of intoxication. Considerations of this sort can explain the conflict of testimony in the present case. In. addition, thero is the fact that Collins, after his meal of pies and the loss of his loaf, was probably sobering up. and the fchdck of his suspension may have had an added effect. The evidence of Collins's fellow-employees appears to "be an honest expression of opinion based du what they saw. The evidence of Inspectors Woollev and Anderson, however, is not merelv a matter of opinion; their accounts of their interview with Collins contain positive statements of facts which are either true or false. There is no ground for suggesting anv grudge or bias by, tho inspectors against Collins. On the contrary, Inspector Woolley showed himself very kindly disposed towards Collins, both before and after the suspension. The Ixvai'd did not believe that these witnesses's accounts of Collins's statements and conduct •were deliberate fabrications, and they substantiated the opinion it formed of his insobriety. In addition, the unsatisfactory nature of Collins's evidence and his peculiar conduct could not be adequately explained on any other ground. The board's decision, therefore, was that the appeal be dismissed. Mr Callan said he presumed from the decision that the onus of proof was on tho corporation. Mr Bartholomew: I think that follows. They have to justify the dismissal.