RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Colonist, Volume LV, Issue 13739, 3 June 1913, Page 6

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

NELSON CASES,

A sitting of tho above-named Board was held in tho Provincial.Hall yesterday. Mr'W. It. Jrlasclden, S.M. presided and with him wore- Mr. J. Gray (representing tho first division) ana Mr. P. Uainos (representing tho second division). Mr. Davidson 'appeared for tho Railway Department, «md Mr. Dcnnehy (of Wanganiu) for the appellants. Mr.- Davidson said that four cases were set <k>wu, all of which wuiuu uo ■agreed should bo heard together. Theappellants were-": Win. Dougan, .stationmaster at WaicolL'ld; A. bmurt, sta-tion-master nt Jvoiiacu j Jas. A. -ivieOaskoy, clerk, the-•i.'ortj.and Goo. v*. Stewart, clerk, iNo.son. 'i'ho groumls oi appoaL were- against being super seeled m tho clarification list by a number of foremen and. ticket-inspectors. Mr. Davidson \va« of opinion that there- was no ground for appeal. Mr. Donnelly contended that there wore grounds ior appeal. ;Vu\ Llaseiuen roiL-arked that the men who Juicl- been promoted had been specially chosen ' ior special work. Cmssihwttion liad sometimes to bo overcome by practicul common sense. Mr. Dennehy submitted tliat the appeiiauts were ©uroiy entitled to Know the. reason why the Geucriu Manager had uuick-;. tuo appointments. After sumo ai-yuuieut, Mi: Denneliy called — , ii! Vjroorgo Gordon Stewart, second clerk on tlio lNolson scctiun, who stated-that ho did general station work. On many occasions he h»u nact v. siiatt muter lam, viva relieving tuo statummastor at Nelson, at the Port, lioigrovo, and ivoJiatu. Ho was eapaule of taking up tiie position oi: couching or goods ioronian or ticKet inspector, ami Had carried out duties; ueriorm-etl by those ouicers. Ho had controlled the outdour staffs at jXolson and the 1 ort. 'lhero \ras no coaching i-oremun at j>elson, although there was worn tor one, and tne duwos were performed by the station ci-i-rk. iio consiuored or the threo positions ticket inspector was the least important, tnon goods and coaciiini>- foremen reopective.y. io ivir. Da.idsou: lie had been on tlio A'oison section for about 12 years, and three years on other sections, the latter as cadot. lie had seen a coachmo- lproinau at work at JSelson—that w;?« to say, he had seen a man doing a eoiiciuug Woman's work. Uitnes-s stated wJiat, in his opinion, were the general dutats ot such an official, tie >, a-s quite prepared to take tho position ot goods ioroman at any place. With it<>ard to the position of ticket inspector", lie could uZt nay oifiiand how many tickets were issued, but he know ci all of them. He was not prepared to believe that there were scores of tickets with which ho was not acquainted. i>lr. Davidson put a question as to what, witness woiuu do in a curtain ease of ticket inspection. . vviuiess auooaiotl to tho chairman that it was not a fair question, and could not bo answe-reu until one- had acquaintance- witn the- particular s«cmr. Ha-se.den: iou have impressed me as being a person that woiuu quicKiy learn tu^ uuues ox a uckcc. mspector. xvir. Davidson contended it was a lair question, aud no eouid put scoies oi ttuniliU" ones. . Mr. xiaseiden: And you could oowl over 'Scores oi persons who are <iuuiy, the woik. 1..+ Witness explained to tiie Board that hia reason ior appeakng was that the men placed in grade y were not put there because- tne General Manager considered tnat the 9th grade was tne proper position for them, but did so oecauso the men considered, and tho stationmastor agreed, tnat they, as lOth gxiatia men, wero getting less mouoy than tu^y wtuo receiving with their overtime as guards. A letter was put in from Mr Munro, Chief Traffic Inspector, in which it was stated that wraps' work Avas exc-el-ient and ho ivould be prepared to recommend ins u^^uiutment to any position in grauo v. 'lh-omas i±- i.u^vaids stated he Avas etationmaster aad in charge of tho iN elton section, bto wart was a very emck>ut officer, and well qualified to be a

coaching foreman. Clarence James McEachen, chiet clerk, and P. A. McCaskey, clerk at tho fort, stated otowa-rt was an eiiic-u-ut omcjr, and well qualitiecl to perlorm tho duties of coacJiing foreman or goods foreman. In" answer to a remark of the chairman, Mr. • OeuiiiMly submitted that the tividoiieo of tlie witnesses showed that tii,.- appellants were- efficient ■officers, and thuc- if hijzhor positions were' thrown open tlioy would bo capable of filling

I them. ! Mr. Haso'.den said tho "Board would | not kcap their decision in suspense.. 'i hey \vi re of opinion that tho oases vvi'iv ecu t'jcd by quite a long list of decisions Inhuming at the well known !\\ ::his>ji.s iuid AlcGovern cases. As he hr.d cm* d savoured to explain to appellant,1/ <-ouuk>l duriuy; his argument, the question wag ~not now whether certain members, were -preferred to appellants, but whether, the 'accidental'(ami he used " the ".. word intentionally) consoquonco of giving an increase in pay to the men appointed a year or two ago as coaching foreman, .goods foreman, and ticket inspector, gave rise to any grievances on the part of the appellants, for the redress of which they were entitled to come to that Board. The Board was of opinion that the ' grievance was purely technical, and not ■substantial. The appellants ought to bo satisfied with the statement re^'fitedly made on behalf of the head or tho Department, that these # accident;; 1 consequences would be avoided as opportunity arose for considering the claims nf appellants for promotion, that they would not suffer-any hardship, and that their promotion in the service would not in fact bo retarded. That was the view the Board took of it, and for those reasons the appeal would be dismissed. After rcfinming at I; o'clock the appeals, of C. J. M-cvKnche-n, chief clerk at Nelson. p.jH. W. T. Trogurtha, chief c-ierk at Pictnn, .agninf.fc bi-iag superseded in the D 3 classificr.tion list last year were tak-mi. When Mr. Donnelly lind briefly open-ed-for the nppollmitr. the chairman as-k----ed tho Crown solicitor to speak. Mr. Davidson said that the Departmen decided how many mon in eacli Department should bo promoted each year, and the two mon under consideration had not been included in tin's number. The mon who had superseded the appellants were mo?} with special qualifications for the positions they woro to fill.

Mr. Donnelly said that the appellants were doing work on a Wei with that in a traffic manager's office. He quoted instances of men Iwing appointed to^ speok'l positions without epecial tmininp".

Mr. Dnvfdson hero interposed, and •e-airl th'it ench TJromot.ion' had been mrrV> oM t-fjfx Tion'?! Tn-frifs.

Mr. rontiauiricr, said be nrnriosod to call the appellants to give eyirl-nco.

Tim chairmen nske/7 what griod this would- do. nrvd pr>id it wor quite annarcMit wh^t tltp wot^d h&: it would vo doubt bo.much the sn^o rp rrjvcv in tb*> morning. ATr. Denn.o-bv s^jd that nffcsr oonsuiting with Mr. McEaclien and Mr.

"Batter n little good than much bad." snv the Germans. So a. small drop of Mart^U's wflkdo yon more cood than a whol* bottle of inferior Brandy.

Tregurtlia. lie had decided not to call evidence.

The chairman said -this 'showed that they liad taken, a reasonable view of things. Mr. Dennehy had convinced him,' and he thought his colleagues, that the- Department had been guilty of no unfairness. Though the appeal Avas lost it did good because sxich appeals sliOAved the nien that tho Department was acting fairly. Such Avore, however, good barks to remind the powers that be that there was such a board. Mr. Dennehy, in conclusion, thankod the chairman for his patient hearing, and said h-c had only urged the ease to have it considorod on the lines of the present ■clas-sifieatiovi.- ■■■■■ '

T.ln?. chairman saic! ths.members of tho Board woro not unanimous, so they wonld reserve their decision.