RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Otago Witness, Issue 3499, 5 April 1921, Page 5

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

THE BARCLAY CASE. A sitting of the South Island Railway Appeal Board was held at Wellington on Tuesday last for the purpose of hearing the appeal of Fireman J. T. Barclay, of Dunedin, against the decision, of the department to reduce his status from enginedriver to fireman for a period of six months. The original charge against Barclay was that he ran past a dangef signal at Port Chalmers on October 20. Mr E. Page, S.M., was chairman of the board, and he had with him Messrs L. O. Jolly and E. W. Henderson. Mr J. Mason appeared for the Railway Department, and Mr J. M'Arley for the appellant. Mr M'Arley, addressing the court, said that Barclay had been in the service for 28 years, -and he possessed an excellent record. He had been driving an express train for five or six years, and had always been looked upon as a reliable officer. Regard ing the incident in question, Mr M'Arley pointed out that, according to Rule 204 “the guard must not give the signal to start the train until he has received intimation from the stationmaster or member in charge of the station that all is right for the train to proceed.” He contended that that rule put equal responsibility on the stationmaster of seeing that the signal was clear before the train started. Further, according to Rule 129, which stated that “one minute before a train is ready to start from a station, and, if the line is clear, the standing signal is to be set at all right,” the engine-driver, on receiving the signal from the guard that everything was all right, was entitled to assume that the stationmaster had carried out Rule 129. Yet, notwithstanding this, the driver alone had been selected for severe punishment. He had been fined £3l 4s and de-graded to fireman, while the stationmaster and officer in-charge were only reprimanded. Mr M'Arley urged also that the punishment meted out to Barclay was unduly severe compared with that received by Driver Dutton, who passed the starting signal at Ravensbdurne' on July 12, 1919, and who also was in possession of the tablet. Seeing that Driver Barclay made sure that he. had the tablet, and that under the tablet instructions the tablet gave him the right of road between two stations, there was nothing serious about his omission to look at the signal. The reason why he omitted to look was that he was engaged fixing up a lubricator on the locomotive, which had just come out of the shops. In evidence submitted to the Inquiry Board the officer-in-chabge at the time stated: “I admit that I was not justified in assuming that the signal was at ‘clear,’ and also ‘I should have seen that the starting signal was at clear before giving the signal to the guard.’ ” He quoted the following statements made by the General Manager to the Railways Committee on October 23, 1919: “When a man gets a tablet at the present time it is an indication to him that the line is clear between certain points,” and “he has nothing to think abofit in respect of that —he has the right of road.” Mr M'Arley submitted, on those statements, that the offence committed by Barclay was not serious, and that the lowering of the starting signal was only a corroboration of the signal to the guard that the station duties had been completed, and all was right for him to proceed. On behalf of the department, Mr Mason said that the facts as stated at the departmental inquiry were not disputed, and Barclay was merely appealing against the length of the punishment. It would be remembered that at the time of the offence the I’ailwaymen at Dunedin threatened extreme action on account of Barclay’s punishment, and the case aroused considerable public interest. For that reason he asked the board to bear with him at some length. Mr Mason -submitted that the, driver should not start a train until the danger signal was down, notwithstanding the fact that -he had already been handed the tablet. Passing a raised danger signal was a very serious offence. He contended that the punishment inflicted was in no way excessive, MiMason then made a lengthy statement regarding the duties of drivers generally in the interests of public safety. The board intimated (the Post reports) that it would take some time to consider the evidence, and would forward its decision to the Minister in due course. The South Island Railway Appeal Board has dismissed the appeal of J. T. Barclay, of Dunedin, against the decision of the Railway Department to reduce his status from that of engine-driver to fireman for a period of six months. The original charge against Barclay was that he ran past a danger signal at Port Chalmers on October 20 last. The case has attracted a good deal of attention since that time, and has been the cause of some friction in the railway service.