THE RAILWAYS

Southland Times, Issue 19279, 25 June 1924, Page 5

THE RAILWAYS

INQUIRY CONTINUED STATUS OF APPEAL BOARD MEN WANT POWER OF VETO ABOLISHED. (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, June 24. The Board at present holding an inquiry into 170 proposals of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants to-day heard evidence referring to pay of machinists, and then proceeded to a discussion on the power of the Minister of Railways to veto or amend the finding of the Railway Appeal Board, which is constituted of a Magistrate, a representative of the First Division of Railway servants, and a representative of the Second Division.

Mr Connelly, for the A.S.R.S., said that this was a matter for the amendment of the Act. Members found themselves in an anomalous position. If a man committed a breach and was dismissed, reduced or fined by the General Manager, he could appeal to the Appeal Board, which gave its decision. If it was a two to one decision in favour of the appellant, the Minister often vetoed the finding. The late Hon. Mr Herries had stated that ho never exercised the veto without consulting his Departmental heads, in other words, the Minister had stated that the General Manager was asked to say whether he was wrong in the first place. Naturally he would not admit being wrong, and the Minister issued the veto. The Board was one that gave the Department quite a fair position. The men were losing confidence in the Board altogether, and it was time that the position was remedied. The Board was not functioning as it should function. If the Department got a two to one decision, it stood, but if the men got a two to one decision, it was invariably vetoed.

Mr Stirling, on behalf of the Department, explained the provisions of the Act, and stated that the power to veto, according to Mr Connelly, was apparently used to the great disadvantage of the men. The fact was that cases of veto were very few and far between, and generally occurred when the chairman was in the minority. The chairman was totally disinterested, and it was impossible to argue that the chairman’s views would not be taken very seriously. The Appeal Board was unique in that the Department was not represented on it. Apart from the chairman, both members were employees, and it could barely be suggested that the First Division member who was elected -fully represented the Department. Some check was necessary on the Board’s findings, which were often majority decisions. The Departmental view was that the power of veto should be abolished if the Department has direct representation on the Board. This might afford a solution of the difficulty, but while the Board was constituted as it was at present, they had to have some check on its operations. Mr Connelly quoted the instance of a porter who was promoted to signalman, and then, after five years was transferred to the position of storeman, one precisely the same as that of signalman, except in duties. The man proved incompetent as a storeman and was reduced to porter. There was an appeal, and the two elected members of the Court found that he was wrongly reduced, and should have been left in the position of signalman. The chairman found that the appeal should be dismissed, .nd stated that he could not enter into the matter of the position of appellant as signalman. The Minister vetoed the majority finding.

Mr Sterling said that it would be dangerous to accept that as a case in point. Facts entered into every case. Mr Justice Frazer said that the P. andT. Board constitution appealed to him more than that of the Railway Board. He asked Mr Connelly how a Board consisting of a Magistrate, a departmental representative, and a representative of the men appealed to him.

Mr Connelly replied that they had a request before the inquiry for the abolition of the power of veto. They had to stand to that.