CIVIL SERVANTS RESENTFUL

Southland Times, Issue 23848, 20 June 1939, Page 6

CIVIL SERVANTS RESENTFUL

Cross-Examination Of Railwaymen LETTERS PUBLISHED IN PRESS STAFF ADMINISTRATION CRITICIZED (United Press Association) CHRISTCHURCH, June 19. Resentment iexists among the Division I staff of the Railways Department in Christchurch over the reported crossexamination of some of the members about anonymous correspondence which appeared in The Press during April. A special meeting of the Railway Officers’ Institute has been called for Wednesday night. Staff administration of railways was criticized and widespread dissatisfaction was expressed in letters which were signed by “Grade 7” and “Another Grade 7.” and appeared respectively on April 3 and April 20.

It is common knowledge among railwaymen that the staff superintendent (Mr A. Urquhart) was sent specially to Christchurch to investigate the sources of the letter and that several members of the clerical staff were interviewed by him at the office of the District Traffic Manager. “There are good grounds for the report that members are very resentful, ’ said Mr J. S. Roscoe, secretary of the Christchurch branch, this afternoon to a reporter who was referred to the secretary by 'the men who were reported to have been interrogated. "It is also correct that a special general meeting of members will consider the matter on Wednesday, ’ and the question of any publicity will be decided at that meeting." Replying to questions, Mr Roscoe said the resentment of members had been communicated already to the Prime Minister (the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage) and also to the Minister of Railways (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan). The Prime Minister, said Mr Roscoe, had not yet had a reasonable opportunity to reply. The letter to Mr Savage called attention to “the irresponsible activities of gersons who should be responsible ofcers of the State,” and made a charge that the interrogation by a staff officer from Wellington was interference with the civil rights of public servants. Even, under Section 59 of the Finance Act 1931, which had been repealed by the Labour Government, the action of any civil servant in writing the letters which had caused the head office to act, could not be challenged, said the branch secretary. That clause provided for the dismissal without the right of appeal of any servant who criticized the Government in a manner which would tend to bring it into disrepute, i "These letters criticized the staff administration, not the Government,” said Mr Roscoe, who added that so far as the branch knew, their authorship had not been established.