B. W. MCVILLY. j

63

I.—6a.

member in a false position, and result in bis losing the promotion to which he is fairly entitled. Had Mr. not called attention to the matter he would have unjustly lost his position for all time, and as it is the Department is made to appear ridiculous. The position is quite indefensible, and the question naturally arises as to whether any other members in your district are in a similar position to Mr. . Please remark as to that phase of the question. Head Officehas to be guided by the District Officers' recommendations, and these should be made with mature deliberation, and on grounds that can be thoroughly justified." We were corresponding with the district as a resull of having compared H/69, ami the officer himself became cognizant of the fact that he had nol himself been recommended, and he also wrote. So far its the Head Office is concerned, it had no desire in 1903 to have anything but the right thing done. Here is another case in which the officer was reported for a long period as being inefficient, but when ii came to a question of recommendation a qualified recoi endation a Yes-No kind of thing was given. Head Office did not agree to that, and wrote —"As you are unable to recommend payment of increase in pay which would ordinarily be due to Mr. on 26th April, 1904. a certificate has been given in terms of section 7 of the Government Railways Department Classification Act, 1901, that he is not entitled therein. Please inform Mr. accordingly. Your proposal that Mr. be informed that his case will be further considered in si.x months' time cannot be r/iven effect to unless you are prepared to make a specific charge, and recommend withholding of salary for six month- as a punishment." This was a case in which I say an inefficient officer was not recommended, but it was proposed that he should be allowed to slip through six months hence ahead of men who were recommended. That sort of thing did not commend itself to the Head Office. It wanted efficient men. 24th August, 1906, from Traffic Manager: " I enclose If/6 for Clerk —'s scale increase due on 6th June. The report from the Stationmaster in regard to the progress of -his member, whilst not being as favourable as might be desired, is not sufficient to warrant me in further withholding the increase. As Mr. 's progress at the time the report in connection with his scale increase was ordinarily due Wits not satisfactory, and as it is only now, apparently as the result of the warning he then received, that the increase can be recon mled, Ido not consider he should receive the increase !" fore (he date quoted on lf/6 —viz.. 22nd instant. I enclose for your information copy of queries submitted to the Stationmaster as the outcome of considerable indefinite correspondence which passed in regard to Mr. 's performance of bis duties, and copy of replies thereto. When advising of the decision to grant his increase this year I propose informing him that next year's increase will not be approved unless a substantial improvement is shown in his work, which must compare favourably with that performed by other members of similar service." The reply of the Head Office was: ''The reports of the Stationmaster are most conflicting and unsatisfactory, is either suitable or unsuitable, lb- has been reported as unsuitable, and a number of statements have been made against him which, in view of the Stationmaster's memo, of 6th August, are not warranted. If 's work was improperly done and neglected, how does the Stationmaster justify the statement of promptness? Mr. also appears to have reported adversely without sufficient cause, if his memo, to is to be relied on. The Department cannot permit any unjustifiable reports to go unnoticed, and the further remarks of the Stationmasters are required." There were two Stationmasters and a Chief Clerk in that lot. In 1909 this man was still adversely reported on after the Head Office had gone to considerable trouble. 1 might say that an adverse report was not made on this man until he had got things in an absolute tangle, and the Stationmaster had to report adversely on him to put the blame on the man to save himself. " 11th January, 1910. —In view of the unsatisfactory reports regarding Clerk , please call upon him to show cause why his services should not be dispensed with. He is to be given full particulars of his shortcomings." That shows the Department fought for the man as lone as it could. It insisted finally on his going, but wanted the charges substantiated. It instructed that the man should show cause why he should not be retired, and thai lie should be given reasons. That shows that, so far as the head of the Department is concerned, he wants the men to know their position. When the charge could not be substantiated the man got the scale increase, but he was warned. When he did not improve he had to get out. 2. Mr. Brown.] Was*it ignorance or inattention? —Both. The Stationmaster's report is here. We did not get a, satisfactory report on this man till we changed the Stationmasters. " 3rd December, 1909. —I am unable to add or take from what has already been stated in my 09/46 of Ist October respecting Mr. 's capabilities, or to offer any justification for withholding the execution of the General Manager's instructions. During Mr. "s career he has only qualified for filling the positions enumerated in my above-quoted memo., and also thai of Shipping Clerk, but he requires to be kept under close supervision in order that his work may be kept up to date. This, to my mind, places him, taking his service and age into consideration, beyond any hope of ever redeeming his lost opportunities, or ever again regaining the confidence of the management. It is to be regretted that in his and that of the Department's interest he has placed himself in this very unfortunate position." 3. Mr. Ross.] The evidence goes in the direction of showing that the Department should have withheld his scale increases'—No. The position was that we had not enough to go on —we only had inference, and we want facts. As there was a doubt we had to give the man the benefit of the doubt. That is the practice we follow. If the management cannot be satisfied it errs on the side of making a mistake in favour of the man rather than the other way. That is the Court procedure, and I think it is supposed to be one of our planks of British justice. Now. here is a case in which a special position was vacant. The gentleman was leaving. " The officer next in rank, and who has had most experience in the work, is Mr. , and, although he is the best man in that branch, he is, in my opinion, not suitable; but if a man in the service is to be appointed, he is the man entitled to the position." Well, there is a Yes-No recommendation.