TRAMWAYS APPEAL BOARD

Otago Witness, Issue 3995, 7 October 1930, Page 69

TRAMWAYS APPEAL BOARD

'A CONDUCTOR’S DISMISSAL.

ALLEGED ISSUE OF USED TICKET. AUCKLAND, October 1. “ If each of our 340 conductors missed a twopenny fare a day for each day in the year the revenue lost to the Transport Board would amount to £lo3t per annum,” stated Mr A. E. Ford, manager of the Auckland tramways, in giving evidence before the Tramways Appeal Boar.l. when a conductor appealed against his dismissal for the alleged issuing of a used ticket to a woman passenger. The Appeal Board consisted of Messrs E. C. Cuteu, S.M., J. A. C. Allum (chairman of the Auckland Transport Board), and John Liddell (representative of the tramway employees). Mr P. S. O’Regan and Mr Sullivan appeared for the appellant, and Mr J. Stanton for the Transport Board. Mr Ford said in evidence that the witness against the conductor appeared to be most reliable. It was not unusual to take cases where there was a single witness. The circumstances of each case were always taken into account. It was difficult to get more than one witness. I ravellers on trams, as a rule, preferred to mind their own business, and did not wish to be mixed up with cases. Sometimes passengers assisted conductors to do wrong. It would not be exaggerating to say that some conductors lost as many as 10 or 12 fares in a day. If each man did that the revenue would be reduced by thousands a year. Many services looked upon open inspection as » inefficient that they resorted to plainclothes men. This was espionage that had never been adopted in Auckland. The employees wore frequently given the benefit of the doubt The men on the trams were treated fairly and sympathetically, but they had to remember that they were expected to do the right thing. Mr 0 Regan objected to the evidence being given by the tramways manager, but the court.ruled out the objection. In dismissing the appeal Mr Cutten said the matter had been considered most carefully, and it had been discussed from every angle. Ho and Mr Allum had come to the conclusion that the conductor had given a passenger a used ticket. The possibility of the passenger’s story being wrong was absolutely remote. He thought the manager was right in dismissing the conductor.

Mr Liddell dissented. He held that the board was not justified in upholding the dismissal when it was a case of one person’s word against another’s.