P. AND T. OFFICERS

Southland Times, Issue 21179, 4 September 1930, Page 11

P. AND T. OFFICERS

DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. “UNDULY HARSH” PUNISHMENT. (Per United Press Association.) Wellington, September 3. In the House of Representatives this afternoon Mr F. Lye (U., Waikato), on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee, reported on the petition of L. C. Rains, of Auckland, praying for relief in respect to dismissal from the Post and Telegraph Department. The committee expressed the opinion that punishment of dismissal had 1 been unduly harsh and recommended that the petition should receive the most favourable consideration. Mr A. Harris (R., Waitemata), supporting the recommendation, explained that Rains had been one of the telegraph employees who had been dismissed shortly after the recent Takapuna race meeting. The facts of the case were that Rains had merely conveyed to a member of his family certain information that had been contained in a private-telegram to himself. In his case there was no suggestion that official information had been disclosed. Mr M. J. Savage (L., Auckland West) declared that the action of the officials of the Department in tapping the staff telephone by means of which information had been given scarcely amounted to playing the game. There was distinct evidence that illegal tr/ffic in betting information had been going on, and the Department would be facing bigger things if it endeavoured to cope with this aspect rather than to contenting itself, with dismissing a few employees who were alleged to have disclosed some, details of this illegal traffic. He contended that the sentence on the. men was out of all reason.

Mr W. D. Lysnar (R., Gisborne) submitted that the Postmaster-General would be acting wisely if he reinstated Rains. Messrs R. Semple (L., Wellington East), A. M. Samuel (R., Ohinemuri) and W. J. Jordan (-L., Manukau) also urged that the Government should take action in the matter.

Mr Vincent Ward (U., Invercargill) said the late Sir Joseph Ward, when PostmasterGeneral, had gone into the case and had found that the Postmaster-General had no power over the staff. He had sought rhe' advice of the Solicitor-General, who had said that control of the staff rested with the Secretary of the Post and Telegraph Department. Mr R. A. Wright (R., Wellington Suburbs) said he was surprised to learn that such a position existed and he considered the sooner legislation was passed rectifying the position the better. If the PostmasterGeneral could not get justice for the men in any other way he should dismiss the Secretary. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, said he felt sure some mistake had been made. He was astonished to hear that the Postmaster-General had no power to reinstate the officer concerned. However, if the Postmaster-General was helpless Parliament was not, and it should pass a special Act if it was required rather than allow’ this astounding injustice to remain. If there had been any criminal guilt it had rested with the Department which in the first place had accepted betting telegrams. The Hon. J. B. Donald, PostmasterGeneral, said Rains had been dismissed because he had divulged information. It Would have been impossible for Rains to have been convicted if there had been no charge and the appeal would not have been dismissed. The House could be satisfied that the case would receive the consideration of the Government. He would be only too pleased to do what he could for Rains within reason. Mr Donald declared that the Post Office did not knowingly receive betting telegrams, but it was very difficult to detect such telegrams. Sometimes they were couched in terms such as “Ten sacks of wheat, p fifteen sacks of oats.” The Department' could not stop telegrams like that. There had been cases of legitimate telegrams being stopped on suspicion.. It was the practice in cases involving suspicion to adopt the precaution of asking the sender to sign a statement to the effect that, the telegram was not concerned with betting. After a number of other members had spoken in support of the petitioner’s case, Mr Lye (chairman of the Petitions Committee) in reply said the committee had been unanimous that an injustice had been done.

Similar petitions from four other exemployees of the Telegraph Office, R. Blair, J. 11. Edwards, E. W. Anstis and R. W. Smith, who had been dismissed at the same time, were recommended for favourable consideration ? on the ground that punishment had been too severe. Members took exception to the action of persons who had been described as departmental detectives in tapping the wires of the telephone, and it was contended that the evidence purporting to show that the contents of telegrams had been divulged was not conclusive; in any case punishment, had not been warranted to the extent that had been inflicted.