RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 3085, 30 April 1913, Page 32

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

SITTING IN DUNEDIN. A sitting of the Railway Appeal Board was held at the Railway Station on Fridaj morning to consider two appeal cases affecting the employees of . the railway service. The board was constituted asr follows: Chairman, Sir W R. Haselden. S.M.; representative of the first division, Mr J. Gray; representative of the second division, Mr Peter Gaines. Tho first case taken was that of George. Andrews, chief clerk at Oarnnru, who complained that upon a vacancy occurring as | traffic clerk at Invercargill he had been 1 passed over in favour of an employee three j months his junior in the service. | Mr H Davidson appeared for the department, and Mr James P. Matheson for the appellant. Mr Davidson stated that the general manager bad exercised h;s discretion conscientiously and to the best of bis ability in selecting Mr J. B. Mitchell in preference to Mr Andrews. He produced the records of each gentleman, and mentioned that Mr Mitchell was 10 years younger than Mr Andrews, and that for a position of the kind at Invercargill, not only the record of the eligible members but their personal characteristics had to be taken largely into account. Ho submitted that an appeal could not be successful under these circumstances. Mr Matfheson, for tho appellant, stated that he was prepared to contend that the general manager had not acted conscien- j taously nor to the best of his ability in making the selection. There was only Mr Davidson’s statement to show that he (the general manager) had exorcised any discretion at all. T'noro was no record that he had consulted any of the officers who would be in a position to judge the work of either of tho candidates, but had simply taken the member who was on his staff and put him into the posit : on. A comparison of tho records of the two men would, he urged, showed that Mr Andrews had a bettor and wider experience, and on every ground was entitled to the appointment. The Chairman said ho thought the positron could be put thus: That tho general manager, on whom tho dirty devolved ef deciding who was tho person who. was actually better qualified to fill tho vacancy, had decided in favour of Mr Mitchell. Mr Gray: The question is: How does tho general manager obtain his information outside? The Chairman: Well, can you find that out? Mr Matheson put in Mr Andrews’s record of service. He eaid Mr Andrews was a pupil teacher and also a certificated teacher (F.) under the Education Department. He then left the education service, and joined the Railway Department, where he had boon employed for the past 301. years. Ho had occupied the pos'tion of stationrnaster in tho Christchurch. Wellington, and Wanganui districts, and had also been traffic inspector at Wanganui. He had held other important positions, and for two years and a-half had been chief clerk at Oama.ru, and in the absence of tho stationrnaster on annual leave and from other causes had personal control of the train-running work in tho Oamaru sub-district, which extended from Palmerston to Hakataramea. He held that the appellant’s record entitled him to consideration in the event of a vaeanev before Mr Mitchell. Mr Davidson said the trenoral manatrer had come to the decision that Mr Mitchell was better qualified for tho position. Mr Mitchell had tho advantage over Mr Andrews in that he was 10 years younger. Mr Andrews .was now 50 vrars of age, and this fact woe aga'nst him taking up new duties with the same alertness os a man some vears younger. Mr Matheson : It would be very unfortunate if they applied that argument to you. Mr Davidson. Mr Davidson : My position docs not apply. Mr Matheson ; Oh, yes! You are tho big fish ; we are but small fry. Mr Haselden asked if Mr Davidson could give any information as to what guided the general manager in making the appointment. He thought the _ general manager might condescend to give tho Ixiard some statement that he had acted with deliberation and knowledge. Mr Davidson : My instructions are to cav that Mr Ronayno is satisfied that he has chosen the better man of tho two. The Chairman (to Mr Matheson) : Do you take up the position that tho general manager has not taken up a conscientious attitude. Mr Matheson; I do The Chairman said they must all agree that this was a pretty strong attitude to take up. If the assertion could be proved the hoard had power to deal with tho matter. Mr Matheson said Mr Andrews had asked a question from tho department as to why ho had been passed over, and had received a reply that no recommendation had been made respecting him at the last annual review of tho staff. Mr Davidson remarked that Mr Andrews was not subject to tho annual review. Ho

was in the seventh grade of the first division. Mr Matheson said the general manager did not ask the district traffic manager in Dunedin for any recommendation in regard to Mr Andrews. He had simply taken a man from the head office staff. Mr Davidson : 1 should like to ask how Mr Matheson knows that. Mr Matheson said he considered that if no recommendation was made no recommendation was asked Mr Davidson said 'no must protest against Mi-- Matheson misleading the board. The Chairman (quietly): He is not misleading the board. Mr Matheson interjected that ho (the chairman) was quite equal to taking the soap from the suds. After detailing Mr Andrews’s several duties during his past service, Mr Matheson stated that, on the other hand, Mr Mitchell had had no experience outside of the Dunedin district. The Chairman. Am I to undestand you wish to make this point —that the general manager took counsel with no one in making the Invercargill appointment. Mr Matheson : That is so. After looking through Mr Mitchell’s credentials, the Chairman said he saw that this gentleman had been on the headquarters staff only since 1911. He had before occupied other positions. Mr Matheson said he was quite aware itiat Mr Mitchell was an excellent officer, but in justice to Mr Andrews ho considered his record was a better one than that of Mr Mitchell. The Chairman; That is only your opinion. Mr Matheson: Of course it is only my opinion. I wish it was yours. The Chairman: The trouble is. Mr Matheson, that you have made out boo strong a case. If you had been able to prove your opening remarks you would have succeeded; but you have not proved them. Continuing, the Chairman said ; Hero are two gentlemen, both of them very good men. A vacancy occurs in an important office. The general manager says, “ Well, I may be wrong or I may be right, but in the best, of my judgment, and acting conscientiously, I think Mr Mitchell is the man for the place.” In answer to questions by the chairman Messrs Gray and Gaines stated that they both considered Mi Andrews’s record a better one than Mr Mitchell’s. The board intimated that it woidd consider the appeal. APPEAL BY A STATION-MASTER. The next appeal was brought forward by Harry L Gibson, who complained that he had been passed over when the appointment of ticket inspector had been made. Mr Davidson stated that some time in 1911 it was decided to create now officials —ticket inspectors — and selections who made from first grade guards, and appointments made accordingly. It was subsequently found that so far from these appointments being promotion to the guards selected they wore a loss, and additional pay was given to the ticket inspectors, which had the effect of putting them in ! the higher grade—from grade 10 to grade 9. Tine appellant, who is stationmaster Sat Scacliff, was thus superseded in order by the ticket inspectors, and he therefore, lodged this appeal. Mr Davidson went on to say that the ticket inspectors were selected from a limited number of specially trained men and that the appellant’s training, and that of the other superseded men, would not fit them for the position, while on the other hand the ticket inspectors would not be eligible for higher positions, which would bo open to the appelant and members in a similar position. The appellant, who conducted the case in In’s own behalf, gave the details concerning his correspondence with the department, in which he complained of his supercession. He also traversed his duties in the service, which ho maintained gave him j a particular knowledge of the work to be 1 done by a ticket inspector. Ho pointed out j that the ticket inspectors had been put • into the first division at a salary of £l3O. , and had then had their salaries increased to £2lO per year, and boon put into grade 9. Witness maintained that all the men occupying the same position as himself | should have an opportunity of taking up the work of ticket inspectors. ! James P. Matheson, stationmastcr at Lytj telton. detailed what he understood were the duties of ticket instructors. Witness i said he had known the appellant for 15 I years, .and from what he knew of his (appellant’s) work' he considered him fully competent to fill the position of a ticket inspector. j (Mr Haselden: I wonder if Mr Gibson i would have accepted the position? I Mr Gibson: Certainly I would. It would have put mo into the next grade. ' Mr Davidson said it nvfrht save the time ( of the court if he stated at once that Mr j Gibson had an excellent record in the service. The Chairman said the position was one ! of the anomalies in a vast organisation. He j did not think it right to insist on the exact logical right so long as they knew they [ were being dealt with fairly in a spirit of justice. Everyljody could see that —that there was a bad joint.

Mr Gibson said he did not think under the circumstances that it would be worth his while going any further with the case. Mr Gaines pointed out that when the ticket inspectors were appointed they were given £IBO a year, but it became recognised that an injustice was done to them, because the guards got more money through getting ovort'me. The inspectors were then given £2lO, which put them ahead again of Mr Gibson, of Division 1. although they' (the ticket inspectors) were taken from Division 2 Mr Davidson drew attention to the fact that the ticket inspector could get no further in his division, but Mr Gibson comd go on. Mr Haselden said he did not think there was any suspicion of favouritism. Mr Gibson said ho did not suggest any susneion of favouritism. The Chairman asked the difference between the first div : s : pn and the second. Mi - Gray: The first division are the clerical staff: the other are the hard work staff.—(Laughter.) In reply to a - question Mr Gibson saxl he would bke the board to deal with his case. DOTH .APPEALS DISMISSED. The board met in the afternoon to consider its findings, and unanimously decided to dismiss both appeals.