RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 18, 21 June 1913, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

CLASSIFICATION OF GRIEVANCES. COLLUSION SUGGESTED. SOME STRAIGHT SrEAKING. A sitting of the Railway Appeal Board was held in the Borough Council Chambers yesterday morning, before Dr. McArthur (Wellington), Chairman, Messrs. C. P. Ryan (Wanganni), representing the First Division, and,L\ Dwyer (Wangauui), representing the. Second Division. Mr. A. H. Davidson represented the Railway Department, and Mr. M. Denehy (Wanganui) appeared .for the applicants. , - ■ Mr. Davidson, in opening, said that thr-ee of the cases were, similar to many • that had been heard in Wellington; Auckland and elsewhere lately, when clerks and stationmasters ,in< grade 10 appealed against being superseded in.; the classification, .list by coaching' foremen, goods foremen and ticket inspectors. . ',' Mr. Dennehj', in his opening remarks, outlined the cause of th 6 grievance, which he said finally came to the question of pay. . The first case was that,of H. H. Horn- ' blow, who stated that he was a 10th'' grade clerk at Eltham. He had previously been stationed at Taihape as booking clerk, parcels clerk, and goods clerk. In .the latter capacity" he had to supervise the sheet work and see .that waggons were unloaded jn quick time, besides doing the clerical work. On an average £3o'b per week passed through his hands. At times he had charge of the station during the arrival and departure of trains. He was 20 years of age. To Mr. Davidson: At March Majt, 1012, he had been seven and a half years in the service. His salary was £135 per year. The officers that he was appealing against would .receive £2lO. His claim then practically amounted to an increase of £75 per 'annum since April -Ist, 1912, and he thought he was capable of doing the work the men receiving that salary did. He thought the' length of service of the men he appealed against ranged from fifteen to twenty \ears, though he was quite prepared to'admit that it ranged from 22 to :V5 years..... jle had been' employed as cadet anl cieik during the whole of his service, save for six months as relieving station Mas-ter. He thought he couid t.ike up a coaching \ foreman's position at Wanganui, «r at any other station.with ;•■ \ v o~k <)r Iwo's tuition, or after studying for i.weck or so, during which someone else would ha-vo :.o do the woru, He i.new that coaching foremen had- Men years at outdoor vork, whilst in.».t of lis time had been at indoor work. He appealed against tlie promotion of for superseding! him though *th'e' applicants number "oil'the 1011- list was 045, whilst Bowman's was 385. Mr. Davidson read out eleven men all appealed ; . against, but who had been ahead of appelant ever since being' elass-' ified in the first division. .Continuing the cross-examination, appelant admitted that the letter of appeal was not composed by himself, but by one of the clerks in Wanganui, whose name he refused to disclose. Mr. Davidson: Did he compose the clause re. the Supreme Court';-. The Chairman: What is,the clause? Mr. Davidson: Should my appeal;.'.be' 'upheld and the Hon Minister 'of Railways veto the decision of the Appeal Board, will you kindly allow me to .place the whole, matter, before the Supreme Court? The lojt.ter was .written to the General Manager. The Chairman: There is a great deal more than appears on the surface. This should he'linvestigiited. Appellarit declined lo give the name and persisted in his refusal when asked by the Chairman. The Chairman asked that a note be taken of the refusal. Mr. Edwin George Wilson, stationmaster at. Taihape,,. under whom appellant had- been for V/., years, gave evidence as to his ability, : Mr. John. Edwin Armstrong. District Traffic Manager at,,Wanganui. stated • that he would not be prepared to recommend appelant for the position of coaching foreman,, goods foreman, or even ticket inspector. ..JJe would he 'quite useless in these- capacities even at a. small. •station like Marton. Even when foremen were appointed from the second division a very stud selection was made, as special characteristics were required, in-, eluding a thorough' knowledge of yardwork. TlieJ practice" 'of allowing junior clerks to Ih|. in charge nf the despatch q[ ( morning l 'trains at stations like Tailiamv had been discontinued eighteen .months■ago. and only the stationmaster and a senior clerk'were allowed to be "in charge in the earhv mornings. v ''<• ' ' '•■ " This concPhded the first ease. CASE' OF\TOIIN EGAN. The next case taken was that of John Egan, stationmaster,' at- Tariki, who'' stated-'that he did all the clerical work at that station, as, well as all the shunting and supervising the loading; in fact, everything, as he had no stall'.- Tic considered that 'he was capable of taking up the position of coaching or goods foreman and ticket inspector. He had been relieving, but had never relieved coaching foremen. He considered that as station" master he had uiore responsibility than the men whpse .promotion he appealed against. He had at times cheeked the train, i To Mr; Davidson:" Up to .March :Sisl, 1012, he had been nearly fifteen years in the service, out of- which he had been stationmaster for 'M/., years at, his present station. He hud'been at Palnii'rston North, Wanganui and liivercargilt, where there were coaching foremen, lie thought he was capable of taking up any of the positions mentioned. When relieving he had men under his control; five at l-funtetville for three weeks being the largest number. ■To Mr. Ryan: There was a. good deal -of train crossing and shunting at Tariki. Appellant could shunt alright, thong]) be was not an expert. Mr. J. E. Armstrong deposed that Mr. Egan carried out his duties entirely to his satisfaction. • He. did not consider that there was a great deal of outside work at Tariki, as the local traffic was practically nil, and were it not that Ih-r was a good deal of train crossing. Tariki would probably be made a tablet stationOwing to lack of necessary trniiiin..- he ■did-not.think Mr. Egm would make a good coaching foreman, goods foreman or ticket inspector. Generally station-masters-as a class were not fitted for th» positions mentioned. To Mr. C.P. Ryan: The responsibilities of a coaching foreman Were «reater than those of■ stationmaster at Tariki though not greater than that of stationmaster at some l.Otli 1 grade : stations' The same applied to ..ninth grade stations though ,„tIH. main U„. responsibilities "ere about equal. Mr. W, Wood. Traffi, Inspector at Wa-ns-anui. deposed that appellant'had earned out Ins outride duties v„ n - Sf,tisf.,cactonly T -,e stated that app-dlant would - be fit e„ to take up anv of the positioiis mentioned owing partly to lack of experience Manv staliomnasters „hl hj" qualified for th-> positions. Po Mr. Davidson: Personalis „,,, ~,„ f " s and control was an in, I'oHnnt qualification ionn. !!<■ considered + i,.w , I.«d to do nil Ihew', ; V'"" NV '"' t'-v st-itinn ci m , f '-ertain conn-,^-'w':l":;;»» A ..l-o s!r. Davlfan.. i Vkom ,

tioiis must Ik.' taken into account. To the Chairman: He considered that a stationmaster having to perform the various duties, even in a minor degree, would be fitted to assume control of any one department. CASK Oh' ARCHIIULD HENDERSON. The next case, was that of Mr. Archihald Henderson, Traffic Clerk, at Inglewood, who deposed that his work comprised clerical work and statiomnaster's work during four hours each day. He had absolute charge. Inglewood was on the Oth grade, a grade higher than his own, and had a staff of four. He considered that lie was capable of taking up the position of coaching foreman, goods foreman and ticket inspector, whose, duties lie briefly outlined. He had done a fair amount of shunting. He considered that his position was every bit as important and as responsible as the men who had been put above him. As he was above them in the classification list he thought that he should have been considered when they were. He had had charge of Inglewood station on various occasions, and in ' charge, when relieved to appear at the Appeal Court. He was thirty-one years of age. His number on the. list was 219, and in the previous year was 311. To Mr. Davidson: When in charge of Inglewood station two porters and a amined at length as to where he had ol>poses of putting a 10th grade officer in charge of a Oth grade" station was to give hhn experience. He was cross-ex-amiiie 'flat length as to where he had obtained knowledge of the duties of the; various positions mentioned. He composed the letter of appeal himself, but 'could hot account for tus fact that 20 appeals worded exactly alike had been ; received by the Department/ The clause ire the Supreme-Court was not his own I idea. ..''''" To the Chairman: • That idea was not given to him in company with others, but he heard it mooted about, and, after I giving the matter due thought wrote the letter at home. .•■'''■' "" Mr. Davidson pointed out that the let' ters of Messrs. Horriblow and- Henderson were identically the same in each instance. M. The Chairman and one of the other members of the Board compared, the letters, which were identically the same. , Mr. Hornblow, recalled by the Chairman', stated that he wrote tlie letjter himself in- his own home, when lie was alone. Further questioned, he admitted that he wrote it from a copy. Mr. Henderson also admitted the same. The 'Chairman: Oh, you '/Hid not write it from dictation, hut from a copy, a fine distinction!- ' ' ' Mr. Rvan said that if there was anything behind this it should be the sub-ject'of-a .Departmental enquiry. ' The Chairman stated that as Ghairman of the Appeal Board he was going to do what- was right and enquire into the matter. These men were evidently not only anticipating what whs going to be done, but they asked that if the majority of the Board decide for them, and ,assuming that the Minister of Railways Would veto the decision, asked "the Manager to give them permission to appeal to the .Supreme Court, and no doubt if defeated there would want to take it to'the higher counsel. . Mr. Dennehy explained that he had never yet asked a man to appeal, anil when he saw (lie clause re the Supreme Court, he expressed the opinion that it , ;was out of order. However, If the Chair*man still pressed for the information and there was likelihood of trouble, he would stick up for the intorests of the appellants. ' , . - 'J The Chairman then asked Mr. Hencfei' 4 stm where.he got thexopy, but Mr. Hen demon declined to answer, as it would be a breach of confidence. •■ . ' Mr. F. W. Spindley, stationmaster at Marton, deposed that the appellant had been with him for two Tears He did not consider Mr. Henderson suited for the positions mention - \ as he was not' strong enough,"though capable of con-! trolling men, Mr. Charles Henry lies, clerk af.Addmgton, also gave evidence.,as.did Mr Parrjs,. audit inspector. This concluded the case. THE. CASE OF J. W. CURTIS.' *K final'appeal was that'of' James d( ' rk ° f Elthnm ' ail(1 formerly. oM'orflcl], who had been promoted from grade 10 to grade fl. without receiving the increased saiarv until a vacancy'hail Wn-found for him in the grade to winch he bad bn,.n promoted. It was .pointed: 0,,t that 100 men had been probated, from grade 10 to grade 0, and ,V'r i n^ v '.« I,ollt 20 of these received apnWtments i n sra(le <„ sim nltaneouslV with t]ie promotion. The other 80 had to-wait until vacancies occurred, though at. the same time, tliev retained their ■position on (he-classification, list. \„. Jielant, however, considered he should have received the increased salary of about £lO per annum as soon as he'was promoted. As a legal question was involved, and ..B.it was admitted that Reliant was a capable officer. P Chairman intimntod that he did not desir» to hear any erideneo •Decision i n ~,] caaes wi '„ , - ' Palmcrston North.