MOTORMAN’S APPEAL IS NOT SUSTAINED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19075, 21 May 1930, Page 9

MOTORMAN’S APPEAL IS NOT SUSTAINED.

MAJORITY VERDICT GIVEN BY BOARD TO-DAY The appeal of Robert Jamison against dismissal from the position of motorman in the service of the Tramway Board was heard before the Tramway Appeal Board to-day. At the conclusion of the case the board retired for three-quarters of *an hour. When they returned Mr H. A. Young, S.y., announced that they had decided by a majoritj’’ to dismiss the appeal. The board consisted of Mr H. A. Young, S.M., Mr W. Hayward (the board’s representative) and Mr J. A. Webb (the employees’ representative). Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for the appellant and Mr J. D. Hutchinson for the board. Jamison’s dismissal on April 11 last, followed a successful action for damages brought by the Public Works Department against the Tramway Board arising out of an accident last year in which a tram-car driven by Jamison collided with a car belonging to the department. Mr Hunter said that as all the evidence relative to the appeal had been given before Mr Young and as the speaker and Mr Hutchinson had agreed that that was the evidence, it was proposed not to call any witnesses. Mr Young: The main question appears to be the punishment. Mr Hunter: Yes . . . whether on the facts the board was justified in dismissing Jamison. On a Race Day. Dealing with the evidence given by Jamison on the damages claim Mr Hunter said that the accident happened on a race day when there was a large amount of traffic about. Jamison was travelling from twenty to thirty feet behind a Public Works Department car which he alleged suddenly' stopped. It was not once in a thousand times that a car travelling in front of a tramcar would suddenly pull up. If the motorman had left eighty feet between him and the car, as had been suggested, it would have permitted other cars to get in and would have retarded his progress to the Square. This was not a case of neglect of duty, but merely an error of judgment, which had been sufficient to sustain the action for damages against the board. Mr Hunter submitted that only gross negligence or a gross neglect of duty was sufficient to warrant the board’s dismissing an employee. A period of twelve months elapsed between the accident and dismissal. Jamison continued as motorman during all that time and had a good record. The Board’s Case. Mr Hutchinson said he did not agree that the reason for the Magistrate’s decision in the damages case was that the tramcar was not eighty feet behind the motor-car, but whether Jamison was keeping a good look out at the time. Jamison’s car was proceeding at a speed that was not alleged to be excessive, but he was gaining on a motor-car that was travelling slowly along the line in front of him. Jamison came up within twenty-five feet of the car where he could not pull up in time when the car stopped. The main conflict of evidence in the damages case was whether, as Jamison alleged, the car had stopped in front of the tram, or whether, as the plaintiff alleged, it had slowed down to about seven miles an hour and was accelerating again when the tram struck it. The Magistrate, holding that Jamison had not been keeping a proper look-out, gave judgment against the board for £IOO odd. There was a heavy responsibility on the board and its officers for seeing to the safety of the public and to the conservance of the money in the tramway undertaking. It was important that the standard of vigilance of motormen should be kept as high as possible. The board must, for the sake of safety, be left free to dismiss men in cases where they had not exercised sufficient vigilance. The argument that Jamison’s continuance in the service for 11 or 12 months was not tenable. If there was only Jamison to consider there might be something in it but there was the question of the safety of the public and discipline amongst the employees. Also with a civil case coming on it would have been suicidal for the beard to dismiss Jamison earlier for if he had been dismissed or punished in any way the board would have been very much prejudiced in its case. The board was also entitled to believe the motorman's report unless it was obviously wrong or foolish until it was disproved. In his report following the accident Jamison stated, as he later stated in evidence, that the car had stopped, but that was disproved to the satisfaction of the magistrate, other-

wise Jamison would not have been dismissed. “ Driven To The Conclusion.” “ One is driven to the conclusion,” said Mr Hunter, “that as the board had been landed in damages it decided that Jamison must go.” Mr Hutchison had said that it would have been suicidal for the board, in view of the pending action for damages, to dismiss Jamison. For the sake of £IOO they were going to keep a man in their employ whom they now said was a dangerous man. It was not until the civil court gave judgment that they decided to dismiss Jamison. “ If there was any question of dismissing this man or punishing him at all it was their duty to get all the evidence on-both sides at the time of the accident. A sum of £IOO is nothing compared with the public safety. The board has shown by its conduct that it had no right to dismiss Jamison. Quoting a note taken out of the magistrate’s judgment on the civil case Mr Hunter said it was not a question of vigilance but an error of judgment. If a tram had to travel so slow behind a car then time-tables could not be. adhered to ; Mr Hunter submitted again that it was not sufficient cause for dismissal. The board retired to consider its decision which was later announced as above.