R , VV. MCVILLY.]

73

T .-6a.

78. Then, if they go up automatically from, say, one grade to another —i am referring to grade more than scale increases—how do you account for the position at Invercargill where an eighth-grade man went up to the sixth grade? First, what was the position?—lt was a Stationmaster, I believe, at the Bluff. 79. What was the grade of the man before he xvas promoted?— The seventh grade. 80. And he went to what ?—To the sixth grade. 81. I thought he was in a grade below that?—Oh, no. 82. I thought lie skipped one grade altogether?—Oh, no. 83. Not at the Bluff? —The Stationmaster at the Bluff is the man I am talking about. 84. I understood from some witness thai some officer down there skipped one grade and went into a higher grade and filled that position I —No. The man I am talking about is the man xvho died —he was in the seventh grade before promotion—the man we put up temporarily till we could place him, and in the meantime his health became so bad that we could not shift him, and he was left there till he died 85. Would you say definitely that such a state of things did not happen, or that it would be impossible for such a state of things to happen, that a man could go from the eighth to the sixth grade?—No, I am not making a statement of that kind at all, because if the first man who was suitable for the position was in the eighth grade he might in a special case be put straight into the sixth; on the other hand, he might lie put into the seventh ami work through. It would depend on what the Department considered the value of the position. 86. if a man was put from the eighth to the sixth grade, do you not consider that would be a reflection on every man in the seventh grade? —It would be an indication that so far as the Department is concerned it did not consider that any of the men in the intermediate grade were qualified to take up the position. • 87. Then why should they be in the seventh "Trade instead of in the eighth when they are less competent than a man in tin- eighth grade? —Because they may have got up previously by recommendations which might not have been iustified by their work, and that officers responsible were not careful enough in making recommendations. 88. That is, you may have men in the seventh grade who should be in the eighth grade?— Yes. 89. And you discovered that subsequently and you did not regrade the positions?— The Department does not pull men doxvn unless they subsequently misconduct themselves. If they fail they come down. 90. Then if you have a number of men in the seventh grade who should not be there, and you have in the eighth grade a number of men who are capable of going through to the sixth grade, do you consider that is a satisfactory condition and a satisfactory system men got up on their qualifications as represented by the reviewing officers, and in the absence of adverse reports, they could not be pulled down. 91. How could they get up on their qualifications if the recommendations were not reliable? — The men in the eighth or any other grade who are not recommended do not go up. It is only the men who are recommended that go up no matter what srrade they are in. 92. I think you said some men were recommended who should not be? —Yes. a man may be suitable for the eighth grade but absolutely unsuitable for the seventh, but yet be recommended to go up. 93. Yes, I can understand that, but I cannot understand him being suitable for the sixth and not suitable for the eighth grade?—A man taken out of the eighth grade and put into the sh-th is generally a man xvho, at the time the intermediate men were put up, xvas not in order for promotion and not considered at that time. He may have been a long way down the list, and in the meantime got up near the top. 94. You say that the reasons for non-recommendation are given to the men, or should be given. Is there a regulation bearing on that?— There was a circular instruction issued in 1903, and attention has been drawn to it sine but I have not got a com- here. 95. Then every man in the First Division, at least, is entitled to an explanation other than the simple statement that circumstances do not justify his promotion?— The officer xvho makes an adverse recommendation on anx- man in the service, no matter xvhat division, is expected to tell that man that be has made an adverse recommendation and give the reasons, and he has instructions to do that. 96. There is one thine I have not been able to get at. and that is this : if all the superior officers under whom a man has worked have a say in his ultimate promotion, or if only his immediate superior at the time of promotion or at the time of recommendation or non-recom-mendation has a say in his promotion—for instance, say a man is working to-day at Wanganui under a particular superior officer, is it, entirely in the bands of that superior officer to say whether that man is competent or fit to be promoted, or are also the recommendations of the former superior officers taken into account? —No. Invariably the position is that the officer under whom the man has xvorked for the last txvelve months is the man whose recommendation is taken. If the man lias been xvorking under two or three officers during the twelve months, then each of those men tire asked to report on him. If he lias xvorked under Brown, then only Broxvn's recommendation is taken; but if he has worked under Brown and Jones and they disagree, then the matter is gone into and reduced to bed-rock, and the Engineer or Traffic Manager and the head of the branch are consulted and recommendations made. 97. But you only go back twelve months?— Yes. but we compare the recommendation of the previous twelve month- with the last, twelve months. Supnosing a man is recommended last year and not this, then we look hack and take two or three or four years to find out how lone the man lots heen r,.--,unmetidl'd. and then iiKiu"r<■ why the adverse recommendation. If on the other hand there was an adverse recommendation Inst year and the recommendation this vesr xvas satisfactory. we raise no objection unless during the rear the man has been guilty of misconduct which has been ,ti under th" notice n* tV TT e-ri OT^o.

10—I. 6a.