RAILWAY SERVANTS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3610, 22 May 1923, Page 5

RAILWAY SERVANTS.

THEIR RIGHTS OF PROMOTION. ARGUMENT IN SUPREME COURT. WELLINGTON, May 17. An argument of considerable importance to civil servants, and particularly to railway servants, was before his Honor the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) this morning. The parties were the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (Sir John Findlay, K.C.) and the Attorney-General (Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C.). Sir John Findlay said a number of questions had arisen concerning the rights of promotion and appeal conferred upon members of the railway service. These vitally concerned the interest of every member, and touched the fundamental basis on which promotion and the right of appeal were based. Sir John proceeded to outline the various Acts concerning railway servants, referring particularly to section 3 of the Government Railways Amendment Act, 1922, which said that the Minister should cause all servants to be classified with a provision that with regard to every member or probationer the right of advance from one sub-grade tp another, or when there were no sub-grades, to receive an increase in pay, should in each case depend upon the efficiency and good conduct cf the member or probationer to whom such advance was due. He then referred to the regulations of 1913, regarding the rights of promotion, and led up to the position in question. The question of promotion in the regulations was made subject to the servant’s ability, and placed him before any other member classified below him, unless, the general manager declined to certify the member to be suitable by efficiency, suitability, good conduct, and merit. If a member was senior in classification, and had a right to a certificate, they submitted that ho had a right to promotion. Sir John submitted four questions as follow: 1 Can tho genera] manager effect the appointments of members lower in order of classification over those above them by issuing a certificate of comparative fitness? 2. Is there power to give such certificate, and is it binding on the member passed over and on the Appeal Board? 3. If it is not conclusive, and the man passed over is successful on appeal, can the man appointed retain his new position, leaving the man passed over to wait for a further vacancy? 4. Is the general manager bound, before issuing a certificate of “comparative efficiency,” to notify the man passed over that he is not passed over because he is not suitable for appointment., but is not equally suitable to the man appointed? Mr MacGregor replied and decision was deferred.