RAILWAY SERVANTS' PAYMENT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3003, 4 October 1911, Page 41

RAILWAY SERVANTS' PAYMENT.

INEFFECTUAL CLAIM. WELLINGTON, September 29. " There must be judgment- in this action for the" defendant. I do not think, -this is a case for costs. The point is new, and a principle is decided, which it is in the public interest to set at rest." Thus his Honor Mr Justice Edwards spoke today in his judgment in the case of, David Wemyss Finlayson versus Thomas Konayme, general manager of the New Zealand Railways. The question, in dispute concerned the payment of plaintiff, a railway servant, and the action was in the form of an application for a wi'it of mandamus, to the defendant to certify under section 51 of " The GovernmentRailways Act, 1908," whether or not the paintiff is entitled to an increase of pay under the act. The material facts were that between April 1, 1908, and July 14, 1909, plaintiff said he had been rated as n porter and acting shunter. From July 14, 1909, the plaintiff has been entered upon the pay sheets as porter and guard. During the first period the plaintiff appeared to have been employed exclusively as a.' shunter. During the second period he appears to have acted much more frequently as guard than as a porter. The wages of Tailway servants are fixed by the third schedule of the act. The wages of a porter are 8s ■'. per day, with no increment. The wagas of a . guard of the second class are 8s 6d per day, with one annual increment of 6d per day. The plaintiff, while acting as-shunter or as guard, had been paid the schedule rate for these services, but without the annual increase. To this he claimed to be- entitled. ■ In concluding his judgment, his Honor said: "The words used are very vague and uncertain. The 'Solicitor-general himself declined to attribute any practical meaning to them. They do, however, certainly point to continuous service as of right in the higher grade as a necessary qualification for the claim to the annual increment. They cannot, therefore apply to the plaintiff's case, in which the service, though practically continuous, has not been as of right, and, can only be justified as a temporary service." Judgment was for defendant, as : noted. Mr H. D. Bell, who was complimented by his Honor on the way he. had-.argued the case, appeared for the plaintiff, and the Solicitor-general (Mr J. W. Salmondj for defendant.