RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19964, 4 December 1926, Page 21

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

YESTERDAY’S SITTING. The Railway Appeal Board sat again yesterday, when further evidence was heard in the case of William James Greig, stationmaster at Clinton, who appealed against the marks awarded to him under the heading of “Leadership, Tact, and Force.” . Joseph Gregory Shepherd, traffic inspector for southern districts, said he had often discussed railway matters with appellant and found him hostile in conversation; he would describe him as “slightly unapproachable.” Appellant always appeared to resent any suggestion made by witness, and looked upon it in the light of interference. “On one occasion,” said witness, “he told me that I was always looking for trouble when I went to Clinton.” Mr Urquhart intimated that that was all the evidence he proposed to call, and Mr Hampton asked the board whether it thought it necessary for appellant to call any witnesses. Had the evidence justified the departmental case? The Chairman said that the points “leadership” and “force” could be cut out. The evidence solely referred to complainant’s tact or lack of it. The board proposed to adjourn and discuss that point. On resuming, the Chairman said that the board had carefully considered the case and had arrived at a decision, which would in due course be communicated to the Minister. A further appeal by the same appellant was then called, but, at the request of Mr Hampton, it was held over till a future date. APPEAL AGAINST SUPERSESSION. Frederick James Raines, clerk in the district traffic manager’s office at Dunedin, appealed against his supersession by A. W. Wcllstecl, who was promoted to business agent in grade IV. Hector Portcous West, district traffic manager at Dunedin, said he had been associated with appellant for a period of over seven years. He had had experience in the transport branch at Invercargill and as train officer in Dunedin. At the last conference of officers appellant was considered. Unfortunately he had a defect in vision, and was recommended for promotion in a selected position. For instance, he couldn’t take up signalling duties, but his recommendation was a favourable one. Appellant had had no experience as a business agent. Witness did not consider appellant qualified to take up the position of business agent in grade IV. Naturally, one who had had experience in that particular branch was more qualified to take the position. Witness had known Mr Wellstcd for a period of 23 years and had been associated with him, ana he felt bound to say that Mr Wellsted was the more suitable man for the position—he had natural gifts. In answer to Mr Hampton, witness said that a business agent’s work was essentially with the public, and he must be able properly to uphold the department’s viewpoint. He must be able to speak well and convincingly, and must be able to arrive at conclusions regarding special rates, in addition to being a good correspondent. Mr Wellsted was a specially good correspondent, and could address a meeting in a convincing manner. The man for such a position must be specially selected. In witness’s opinion the fact that fMr Wellsted had had experience in the commercial department entitled him to preference. Appellant had always given the utmost satisfaction in his work on the traffic side. Daniel Rodie, commercial manager for railways, said there was a difficulty in finding suitable men to take up positions as business agents. Special qualifications were required, and when the staff was first constituted the selections were not made from any particular grade; as a matter of fact, two outsiders with business experience were selected. Witness would say that appellant, without experience in the commercial branch, would not be so valuable as a business agent as Mr Wellsted. A business agent should be competent to discuss railway matters with Ministers of the Crown, members of Parliament, chairmen of local bodies, and leading business men. The promotion o'! an untrained man would not be consistent with the efficiency of the particular branch. There were eight business agents. Witness had been consulted on the appointment of Mr Wellsted. On behalf of appellant, Mr Hampton called Albert Ernest Firman, stationmaster at Timaru, who said that he had had the appellant under his charge for some time on the West Coast and had always found him a capable officer. Appellant was there at a difficult time—just after tHe traffic officer had been removed, and he carried out his work in a most satisfactory manner. He had washouts and breakdowns to control with. Witness saw no reason why appellant could not fill a position as business agent. At this stage the board adjourned till 10 a.m. on Monday.