RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

Southland Times, Issue 17469, 25 March 1915, Page 7

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD

AN INSPECTOR'S CASE. (I’er Cnite'l Press Association.) WKI.LINGTOX. March Jl. At Wellington the Hallway Appeal P.'ianl licanl an appeal liy I. 'Warren, inspector of permanent way at Waipukurau. against being superseded in the list for PHI. There were three grounds for the appeal— {i t Thill the appellant was superseded by a!) members helms - him on April I |;t i;;; tjt that he had been reduced in status; and t'.'.i that he was debarred from future promotion in that there was the "tag - ' opposite isis name "Maximum for position." Mr I'etuu-hy stated that tlie appellant’s salary was tJ7” .1 year. .1. ituruetl. chief engineer of railways, gat*- evidence tp.at he reviewed the staff for promotion for 11*11. and recommended the appeallant l" promotion to the top of grade s, tun not liis promotion H> grade 7. Witness added that he had re.-ommended that tin- maximum salary for that position should lie £- T. 1 a year. Witness took into eousideratiou the appellant's servite to Hie department as an inspeeior of permanent way. To .Me I'ennehy: When lie made the recommendation he did nol full.'" realise that there was a reelassllica I ion of.staff. Mr Warren had under his el targe HI miles of line and il" men, and when extra work iu; going on J't or HO additeoial men. To the t'liainnait: Witless would eonsi, hr whether he would recommend Mr Warier, f,,r promotion when making Ids next review, hut he could make no promise. (1,, had recommended him foe a -alary of tJT.’,. and not recommended him for grade 7 heeatise Jte was receiving an in, reus.* ~f fl'i. and heeattse io* did not think it likely llt a I a large uumher of ineouid lie plaeed in grade 7. T,.,■ chairman remarked that if witn, • ,’s . ~|i|eul inn were the eorreel one it would mean that the system might apply throughout the whole service, and litis tv..,dd !„■ contrary to the spirit of tieA • plying to further questions hy the i :. .1; rmati. witness stated that Mr Warren wa- a satisfactory Inspector, and it was r , • lack of prolicieney that prompted t,. recommendation tiutl lie should fern 1:11 in grade s. it was l,y reason of t .. fai l tii.it ip' ( witness 1 recognised ft ~| all the inspectors could not lie pror, 1,, 1> ,) |.I grad,' T. and also that lie would ~l■. . a ,’i 1.111 e,■ of reconsider)ng Mr War-r-n's position til** following y"ar, !C. Widdop. district engineer, gave evidence .e I" lip' appellant's work being ftp 1 isfaetorc. «j,„ ision was rest rvcl.