RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 3033, 1 May 1912, Page 10

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

TWO APPEALS ALLOWED. SOME IMPORTANT COMMENTS. WELLINGTON, April 25. The Railway Appeal Board delivered its decisions to-day in the cases in which John Cheesemon, signal and interlocking inspector at Wellington, appealed against his position on the classification list, and in which J. Gordon, inspector of permanent way, Wellington, appealed against being suspended on the classification list for 1911. Both appeals were upheld. Dr M‘Arthur, chairman of the board, in delivering the decision in Cheeseman’s case, said that no evidence was adduced by the department to show that he was not competent to fulfil has duties, or that those who superseded him were more competent than he was. (ffieeseman was fully entitled to an advance in grade. In Gordon’s case also bis Worship said the department liad not shown that he was incompetent to fill the office of the one who superseded him, and his appeal should be upheld. His Worship said there appeared to be some inconsistency in his judgment (delivered on Wednesday) in the case of W. Thomson, station master at Greytown, who appealed against his being superseded on the classification list of 1911 by Messrs Wellings and M‘Govern. Dr M‘Arthur had held that this appeal should be dismissed, but the other members of tire board (Messrs C. P. Ryan and Martin Lee) upheld the appeal. His Worship had said that the regulations provided that no promotion should be made until the general manager furnished a certificate as to a man’s efficiency, suitability, good conduct, and merit, and as the appellant had not obtained such a certificate the appeal should be dismissed. In the cases of Gheeseman and Gordon, his Worship said, there also appeared to be some inconsistency. “ Thomson’s case, however,” remarked his Worship, “was a case of a rise in the grade which he was in, not from one grade to another. I have reconsidered the point whichl took in Thomson’s case, and I am very much afraid now that regulation 40 is ultra vires, because section 60 of the act gives everyone the right tfo appeal from superior officers. The high superior officer is the general manager, and I cannot see how the general manager can refuse to give a certificate. If a certificate were given a man would be entitled to his increase, either in pay or in grade. If the general manager declined to give a certificate then he would be above and beyond the regulations themselves —a position which his Worship thought was never contemplated by the act. X)f course it was still in the hands of the Minister If he chose to veto those appeals, but his Worship thought that the best thing would be a revision of the regulations to bring them into something like the spirit of the act itself. Mr J. Davidson, who was the defen-

dant’s representative during the hearing of the appeals, said that it was altogether unnecessary for the department to adduce evidence to show that Cheeseman could do the work of the other men who had superseded him because their work was altogether different. Dr M‘Arthur desired to know whether men were to be taken out and put above another man because a certain branch of the work happened to be valued by the department at a higher remuneration. He did not think the department had any right to make such distinctions. Mr Davidson suggested that by the finding of the court his Worship was prepared to eny that the duties might be interchangeable. Dr M ‘Arthur replied that he did not say that; but he did not think it should be against a man because he had been given a certain class of work that he should in consequence be refused promotion to a higher grade.