RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 9400, 29 March 1898, Page 2

RAILWAY APPEAL BOARD.

A sitting of tho Noith Island Railway Appeal Board was held yesterday (Monday) morning at the Druids' Hall before Mesbi-3 Eyie Kenny, S.M., H. Davidson (representing Division I. of the service), and T. Wilson (representing Division II.). The assistant-General Manager of- Railways (Mr Hudson), the Chief Engineer of Constructed Railways (Mr Lowe), and Mr Buxton (Traffic Manager) represented the Department. C. J, botce. • Tho first case was that of C. J. Boyce, cleaner, who pleaded (1) that length of service entitled him to bo placed higher on the classification list; (2) that qualifications and being rated as a second grade fireman entitled him to promotion before his juniors in service; (3) that he is entitled to promotion others have received ; and (4) that prospects of promotions unjust. Tho evidence of appellant and a witness, taken on oath, was to the effect that cleaners were promoted to firemen, after passing the necessary examination, according to their length of service, con duct, and efficiency. Tho appellant pointed out that cleanera had only beon classified according to p.iy, and that men who had been less than 12 months in the service had been promoted over the heads of older servants. Mr Hudson contended that the appellant was classified according to regulation No. 25. Cleaners were paid accoiding to ago, and it often occurred that cleaneis with longer service had been classified below those with shorter service, but who entered tho service at a greater age. Length of service did not rogulate the position of cleaners in the service. The fact of any cleaner being examined for firemen's duty did not fix his position iv the grade of cleaner. T. S. HENDERSON. The applicant, who is clerk in the District Engineer's office Wanganui, appealed against tho disqualification on the ground that his length of service (permanent) is greater than that of Messrs Triggs, Stringloman, Hicks and McVilly ; (2) that generally he has held superior positions to tho four clork3 named, and although reduced from £330 to £250 in 1894, it was through no fault of his own, and he was definitely assured by thfl Chief Engineer that ho would not lose his seniority over all the membeis of the maintenance clerical staff. The appellant went fully into his case, pointing out that though he was senior in service to tho persons mentioned, his salary had beon reduced and others had boeii promoted over him. He proceeded to prove that it was through no fault of his own that his salary was> reduced, but tho Board decided that they could not hear evidence in relation to matters previous to the Ist Apiil, 1897, a lotter from Mr Roynauo, General Manager of the Raili ways, being road objecting to re-opening giis/ances, on the ground that it would entail confusion in the Bervico. In roply to a question from tho appellant, Mr Lowe said that in the main Mr Henderson had cairied out his duties satisfactorily, but refused to state wherein the appellant had not given satisfaction. Mr Henderson then read a number of testimonials lie hid recsived from different officials of the service, including a very eulogistic ono from Mr Lowe, received in 1894. The filed statement by the Department was to the effect that at the time of the classification Messrs Tiiggsand Stringleman were already in sub-class 3. Messrs Hicks and McVilloy were placed in sub-clags 3 on account of special fitness for their respeotivo positions. Tho filed statement was as follows: -It is generally understood that Mr Hendorsan was reduced in rank and position on account of the friction between the office over which he presided and the District Engineers, but there are no documents in which this is stated. At all ovents the general manager and chief engineer aro not prepared tore-instate Mr Henderson. Mi ! Hudson pointed out that the parsons mentioned all occupied more' important positions than the appellant, and stated that there was no necessity to rake up painful things. He had a high regard for Mr Henderson's personal character, and the only thing he had to say was that the Department considered the other men more suitable than Mr Henderson for the positions they ocoupied. n. aekins. The appellant complained that Mr Gillman of Addington and Mr Parsons of Petone, were placed before him in the Clasdificatiou List, aud desires that tho position of clerk to the locomotive engineer, Eastown, be rated at least iv s.ub-class 5. The grounds for not acceding to the member's demand were that the position was governed by the date of entering the sub-class. It is considered that pay as at present, £180, is adequate remuneration for the character of work performed. Tho appellant stated that his duties as head clerk in the locomotive engineer's office had incieascd very much of late and he occupied a very responsible position, taking oharge in the absence of Mr Jackeon. Mr Hudson submitted he was properly placed on the list, and it wa3 a matter for the Department to say what his salary should be. W. J. TtJRNEII. Tho appellant, who was not in attendauce, appealed against the service shown in list C, G years C months, and claimed 19 years' service. It was shown by tho Department that the appellant had left the service, and had been re-appointed. The Board decided to reserve its decisions and forward them to th 9 Minister. Tho Roard adjourned for lunch. A. H. MCLLOE. . Tho appellant is traffic clerk ou the Wanganui section, and pleaded that the salary of £200, with a maximum of £220, was inadequate for the responsibilities and duties of his office. The Department's reply was that the appellant was already paid at a higher rate than any of his predecessors, and the Department saw no reason for further increasing tho pay. MCIIAItD DIVEY Appealed against being classified as a skilled laborer, and considered he should be classified as a foreman laborer at higher pay. The Department's grounds for not acceding tq tho appellant's demand wore that lje was rated correctly as a skilled laborer, and that when iv charge of other men the regulations provide foi? his being paid 8,3 as ganger of laborers. The a'pp3llant stated that he had b,96n 15 years, in the service and though frequently in charge of men and havjng responsibility he had never received any extra, although he had asked for it. Mr Lowe said he could not understand why ths appellant had not received Is per day extia when in charge of other men, and considered it should be rectified. J. P. ELLIS, stated he had been over 10 yeai-3 in the service, aud was informed at starting that he could rise to 8s or 93 per day. He is in receipt of 7s andconsideia he should bs placed in the fkst grade. The Department stated that the appellant had been classifiod accoiding to the recommendation of the Locomotive Engineer (Mr Beattie). j. brown complains against bis classification as a porter, claiming that he is a storeman and should be paid as such. The Department say he is not entitled to the position, and is adequately paid xfor work done. Many men runk before him for promotion.