THE LONGTON CASE.

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 15836, 5 June 1919, Page 8

THE LONGTON CASE.

STATEMENT BY GENERAL MANAGER OP RAILWAYS.

In view of the publicity that has been, given in the press respecting the disallowing of the recommendation of the Railway Appeal Board in the Longton case, it is desirable that the position should be clearly and definitely placed before the public, which up to the present time has had merely an ex parte statement. The question for consideration of the Department was whether Longton, who the Appeal Board found had on occasions adopted an insubordinate attitude towards his superior officers, was fitted for and deserved promotion to a higher grade. The regulations of the Department definitely provide that the road to promotion shall be efficiency, merit, good conduct, and suitability. Longton had on several occasions displayed an intolerance of criticism, and a disinclination to obey instructions, amounting in effect to direct insubordination, and he persisted in maintaining this attitude despite the fact that he had been, as he himself admitted, personally called before bis Traffic Manager on three occasions and admonished and advised in a kindly way by that officer. The manner in which bo comported himself when before the Appeal Board drew from the chairman the remark that “the gravest of the charges against the appellant appeared to be that he dic|, not know how to speak to his superior officers, and that if that conduct was employed what sort of chance would the general public have with such an officer.” On another occasion the chairman commented on “the sharp manner in which the appellant answered questions as being likely to make an unfortunate impression so far as his case was concerned.” He also asked what discipline could there be if a juuior officer was to talk regulations and so on with his superior officers.. It is the practice to review the railwav staff once a. year. When 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 this decision that be appealed. Promotion to the next grade would have placed Longton in a position of responsibility, where he would have to control and maintain discipline of a staff varying in number to his location. Discipline is of vital importance and an absolute necessity in the Railway Department. It is obvious that the operations of the Department could not be carried on if every unit of the service were allowed to act independently and as lie thought fit. Indiscipline would result in chaos. In ordinary circumstances, insubordination is invariably met by reduction or dismissal, and in every such case where the member concerned has appealed and the Department has established the fact that he was insubordinate, the decision of the Department has been upheld by the Board. It is clear from the Board’s decision that they recognised Longton was insubordinate, and that he was deserving of punishment. Surely the interval which separates a member meriting punishment from one meriting promotion is sufficiently great to nerd no emphasis. The Department has neither reduced nor dismissed Longton, nor has it inflicted direct punishment for insubordination. What has been done, in effect, places Longton in exactly the same position as any other member who is considered to he disqualified for promotion by reason of unsatisfactory work or conduct of any kind, this notwithstanding tlie fact the Longton’s deliberate insubordination is more serious and far-reach-ing in ils effect than failure to satisfactorily carry out duties of a routine character, which do not involve vital principles If an officer who is deliberately guilty of repeated acts of insubordination is to bo rewarded by promotion, the question naturally arises as to what is to lx> the reward of merit, efficiency and good conduct, for that of course is what promotion connotes. The view taken by the Department is that the promotion of Longton would place a premium of insubordination and indiscipline would have a most pernicious influence on the staff of the service, and make it utterly impossible to satisfactorily fulfil our obligations to the public. The right of veto has at all times been exorcised with the greatest reluctance. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that during the last four years only two appeals have been vetoed out e,f 140 lodged. In both these cases vital principles were involved, one relating to drunkenness and the other (Longton’s) to insubordination. The finding of the Board wa,s:— “In this case while w© are satisfied that on the occasions charged tlie appellant’s attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate, we think under the circumstances disclosed that to deprive him of promotion would be to punish him excessively, especially as it lias been generally admitted that in all other respects he is a competent and efficient officer. “We therefore think that his appeal should be allowed.” It will be noticed the only definite statement of the Board is “we are, satisfied that on the occasions charged the appellant’s attitude towards his superior officers was insubordinate,” The rest of the finding resolves itself into a mere expression of opinion,—first,, as to extent of punishment, and, second, as to tho action to be taken. The invariable practice where the Board is thoroughly satisfied is to make a definite recommendation that “appeal is allowed” or “appeal is dismissed,” as the case may be. In this instance, it would appear that the Board was in doubt and left the final determination of the appeal to the Minister, in terms of the Act. There is evidently a good deal of public misconception as to the constitution of the Railway Appeal Board. Hie Minister of Railways has been subjected to severe criticism in vetoing the unanimous decision of a Board upon which it has been positively asserted the Department has a representative. Loose statements of this kind are much to be deprecated. The public has a right to expect that before comment is made based upon tho statements of interested parties, reasonable care will be taken to establish the facts. The Railway Appeal Board was established in 1896. A reference to tho Act will show that it consists of a chairman, who must he a Stipendiary Magistrate, and two railway employees elected by the staff. When the General Manager, upon whom devolves the responsibility for the safe working of the traffic, which, again, obviously depends upon the discipline and efficiency of his staff, mates a decision upon any matter affecting adversely any employee of the Department, such decision is subject to the revision of this Board. The necessity for having some check upon the findings of a body so constituted a ? ■k' ave 110 direct or indirect responsibility for the ultimate effect of these decisions must surely be obvious. The Minister has on more than one occasion, in replying to representations for the abolition of the veto, stated that he was willing to favourably consider this request, provided that the Department had proper representation on the Board. The suggestion for the alteration of the constitution of the Board in this direction was rejected by the societies representing the employees. That being the present position, it is clear that the public interest must be protected by tlie right of veto being retained , Ay the responsible authority. In commenting on the Longton case much mis-

conception has been created by the inaccurate statement that the case is unique, inasmuch as it is the first occasion upon which a unanimous decision of the Board has been disallowed by tbe Minister, and, furthermore, that it had been stated by the Minister that the veto would only be exercised where a breach of regulation involving public safety was committed. No such statement can bo traced. As a matter of actual fact, unanimous decisions of the Board have been vetoed by each successive Minister of Railways from the inception of the Board to date. The Hon. A. J. Cadman exercised his right on six occasions. Sir Joseph Ward on two, Tbe Hon. J. A. Millar on four. The Hon. M. Myers on two, and Tho Hon. W. H. Hemes has exercised his right three times, —twice within the last four years. In the majority of oases the appeals that were disallowed referred to questions of promotion.