THE LONGTON CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 45, Issue 13850, 5 June 1919, Page 2

THE LONGTON CASE.

STATEMENT BY GENEBAL MANAGER.

{By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The General Manager of N.Z. Hailwaysj, Air B. W. McVilly, in the course of a statement regarding the Longton case, says: ''The question for consideration by the Department was whether Longton, who the Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insubordinate attitude towards his superior ofiiwas fitted for and deserved promotion to a higher grade . The regulations of the Department definitely provided that the road to promotion should be by efliciency, merit, good conduct aud suitability. It was the practice to review the railway staff once, a, year. Wlien the review of 1918 was made it was considered that Longton, by reason of his insubordinate conduct. was not suitable for promotion to the next grade, and it was against that decision he appealed. Promotion to the next grade would have placed Longton in a position of responsibility, where he would have to control and maintain the discipline of a staff varying in number according to his location. Ft was clear from tho Board's decision that they recognised Longton was insubordinate and deserving of punishment . '' "Surely," Mr McVilly states, "the interval which separates a member meriting punishment from one meriting promotion is sufficiently great to need n oemphasis. The Department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longton, nor has it infliflcted a direct punishment for insubordination. What has been done, in effect, places Longton in exactly the. same position as any other member who was considered to be disqualified for promotion by reason of unsatisfactory J work or conduct of" any kind. *" The view taken by the Department was that promotion of Lonjrton would place a premium on insubordination and indiscipline, and would have a. most pernicious influence, on the stall' of the service. The Minister had, on more than one occasion, in replying to representations for an abolition of the veto, stated that hi was willin.tr to favourably consider this request, provided ihe Department had proper rep-lvi-enfalioii u n the Board. The su.<_'estion for an alteration in (he constitution of the Board in this direction w ;i " rejected by the societies representing the employees. That being the present position, it was clear that the public-, interest must be protected by tin , right of veto being retained by the responsible authority. The statement concludes by pointing out tho unanimous decisions of the Board had been vetoed by each successive Minister of 'Railways from the inception of fhe Board .