TRAMWAY APPEAL.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1789, 7 November 1919, Page 8

TRAMWAY APPEAL.

A MOTORMAN'S DISMISSAL. BOARD'S DECISION UPHELD. The Tramway Appeal Board, consisting of Messrs S. E. McCarthy, S.M. (chairman), J. A. Frostick (representing the Tramway Board), and C. O'Donnell (representing the Tramway Employees' Union), met yesterday afternoon to consider an appeal by Herbert A. T. Alderson, formerly a motorman employed by the Tramway Board, who was discharged by the board on account of a head-on collision between" a Coronation Street car, driven by him, and another car, at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Antigua Street. Mr H. T. Armstrong appeared for the appellant, and Mr J. J. Dougall for the Tramway Board. Mr Dougall submitted a technical objection that the appeal was out of time. Mr Armstrong contended that, if the case were out of time, it was the fault of the tramway officials. Alderson, who had not received his final dismissal until August 17, and appealed on September 15, had complied with all the conditions r laid down, and, consequently, he was quite within his rights in appealing. Mr Dougall stated that a point of law was involved, and that the Court's decision would establish a precedent — perhaps an unfortunate one. The chairman stated that he would hear the appeal first, in order to decide the question of law involved. Mr Armstrong stated that he did not deny that there had been a head-on collision, nor that the blame had been attachable to Alderson, but he did contend that, when the case was heard, a different complexion would be placed upon the matter. A few chains from where the collision took place, there was a compulsory stop. It was Peace Day, and large crowds were about. Alderson saw a crowd at a stop, and, knowing there was no room on his car, he went slightly past the stopping-place. It was frequently done in the tramway service. When he attempted to stop, owing to his heavy load and the greasy state of the lines, he could not do so, as the wheels would not grip successfully, and a collision occurred. "When the Court heard the evidence of Alderson they would, doubtless, come to the conclusion that he was not to blame altogether. Alderson's record appeared, on the face of it, to be a bad one, but in the eyes of tramwaymen this would not be so. He submitted that the penalty inflicted, after Alderson's long service with the board, was excessive. Appellant stated that he had been 10 years in the employ of the Tramway Board. He had been employed as a motorman since 1911. He had never had a serious accident before. In the first six months of his driving he had a rear collision at the depot. On the occasion of his accident, the car was very heavily loaded. Owing to the procession in the city, all the cars were off their usual run, and were not running according to time-table. He detailed the accident and causes for it, stating that at the time of the collision his car was under control. The concussion was so light that the conductor thought it only a rough stop. Only the passengers in the front cabin knew of the accident.

To Mr Dougall: The day was a dusty one—a nor '-wester. The dust would accumulate on the oil on the curve of the rails. This would not check the car, however, as the oil was of the consistency of butter. He was making no complaint about the car equipment. He would state that on the day of the accident more than two-thirds of the passengers had not paid their fare on the car, as the conductor could not get through the overcrowded car. It was the crowd rushing the car which made him release his brakes and run on a little further. He knew of the Tramway Board regulation, No. 7, which stated that any employee found guilty of a head-on collision would be instantly dismissed. Mr Dougall produced appellant's record for the past year, which showed that, of 90 men employed, he ranked 89th, and that during the last three months 30 entries had been recorded I against him. The appellant, in answer to a question by Mr Armstrong, stated that on the day of the accident it was impossible to observe both the rules and the time-table. No further evidence was called. Mr Dougall stated that the results of a collision were so serious that the penalty must necessarily be severe to maintain discipline. The board retired to consider its decision, and, after an absence of a few minutes, returned, when the chairman stated that it did not decide the question as to whether there was any right to appeal, but, assuming that appellant possessed the right, ,it did not see any reason for altering the board's decision.