RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6121, 7 March 1898, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

— -— SITTINGS Itf CJJRIS^QHtJRCII, THIS DAT. The Board of Appeal under the Railway Classification Act opened its sittings at the Christchurch Railway Station" this morning' ( present — His Honor Judge Ward (in the chair), H. Baxter (officials' representative), and D. Handysides (employes'representative). Mr Hudson (assistant general manager of railways), Mr H. Rotherham (locomotive superintendent), Mr Lowe (chief engineer), and Mr W. H. Gaw (traffic manager) were present. The first case taken .was that of Gordon Howe, who complained that, being senior to the four men placed in the fourth class, having been on the permanent staff since 1871, and hayiag been senior crane-driver ' in Lyttelton for. ten yeacs, r he-had been reduced from : crane-driver, to • wharf-porter; though mostly, employed . in the ; former.

capacity. ... .: . . . I The. application was opposed -by the Department on the ground that the applicant had been dismissed in 1890, when his pay was 9s a day. In January 1892 he had been reappointed as wharf-porter at 7s a day. In May, 1892, he was made wharfporter and crane-driver at 7b and 83 per day, and had been classified according to his position since he re-entered the service. The applicant stated that he had been dismissed during the maritime strike. After discussion his Honor said that the Board would consider the case and report to the Minister. J. P. Howard, chief storeman at Addington, complained that he was in charge of the most important store in the colony, and was only receiving 8s 6d a day, when he should receive 10s. He had been put in the second grade, and had first grade men under him getting as much pay as he received. He called Mr Collier, storekeeper in charge at Addington, who stated that Howard had been given to understand that he would receive an increase of pay every year until he had 10s a day. Mr Hudson said that although a man might be put in an inferior position, the Act provided that his wages should not be prejudicially affected. Howard's assistant, Norman, had been a chief storeman in another department, and that was why he was receiving as much as the applicant. Eight shillings and sixpence per day was the highest pay any head storeman in the colony received. T. M. Fowke claimed that lie should be No. 1 in the first grade of guards instead of No. 5. He produced evidence to show that he was the senior first-grade guard in the colony. On behalf of the Department, it was contended that applicant had been placed according to the dates shown by the records of the Department. The statements now made on his behalf were conflicting to some extent, and whilst the Department was of opinion that his statements were bond fide, and in the main correct, it was a matter for the Board to determine whether the records of the Department could be set on one side in favour of the present application. In any case future promotion was not likelyto.be affected, and it seemed to be only a matter of sentiment as to who/was the oldest New Zealand railway guard. Mr Hudson explained that the sympathies of the Department were entirely with Mr.FoWke, .and they did not oppose his appeal. The applicant said that the statement in the record was not correct. He. was appointed guard on April 1, 1872, on the opening of the line from Christchurch to Kaiapoi. Mr Hudson said he was quite satisfied as to Mr Fowke's claim. His Honor said that he could not announce what the recommendation would be, but he would say the Board was quite ( satisfied. J. Whyte, J. E. Stokes and J. Voss stated that they had been wharf foremen at Lyttelton for the last six years, although only classed as wharf porters and leading hands, at 7s and 8s a day, that they had been employed as leading handa at 8s all the time, so that no benefit accrued to them under the classification, whilst the wharf porters had received an increase of 6d a day. From the nature of their work and responsibilities, the applicants were practically wharfingers, and they should be classed as such. The contention of the Department was that the applicants, with others, had been appointed as wharf porters at 7s a day in 1890. Some of the men had also been appointed tally clerks and leading hands, when required, at an advance of Is a day. The percentage of storemen in Grade I. being at the maximum allowed by the. schedule, there was no opportunity for promoting the men, and it was considered that they could not be rated as wharfingers or foremen. Wharf porters only received 7s 6d, and these men got Bs. The applicants stated that they often had to work at night, and received no overtime, but were allowed time off in the day. The Board reserved its decision. J. White, clerk, claimed that he should be allowed sixteen years' service instead of seven years two months. He stated that he had joined as clerk in 1871, had resigned in 1880, had been re-engaged in 1881 as temporary clerk, and had been appointed permanent clerk in 1890. He wished his service since 1881 to be taken into account.--The Department objected, and the Board reserved its decision. [Left sitting.]