I.—6a.

74

R. W. MCVILLY.

98. Supposing a man is employed at Christchurch and has given satisfaction for say three or five years, and he is then transferred to another place where he remains for twelve months under a new superior officer and does not give satisfaction? —Then xve make inquiries of the other officer he has been longer xvith. We give the man every chance and make all possible inquiries to prevent injustice being done to him. If A recommends a man for three or four years and B xvho has had him for twelve months does not recommend him, then B has to state specifically in what way he fails. Then A has to report, and if xve find a mistake has been made we take B's recommendation. 99. That is to say, you go back beyond twelve months?— Only for the purpose of ascertaining whether a man's conduct and work have been such as to show that a mistake has not been made by the last man. 100. The whole trend of your evidence this morning seems to indicate that the complaints regarding promotion should be made against the immediate superior officers and not against the Head Office? —Yes, those are the men who make the recommendations. 101. If that is xvhere the defect is, is there any remedy? —As far as I can see I do not know oflinv remedy. We do our best to prevent promotion of the unfit or withholding it from the qualified, and remedy errors as far as we can. You are bound to have a man in charge of men, and as long as you have got that you have got to rely on the man put in charge. I cannot suggest any remedy, and I have given the matter very serious consideration. 102. Then you readily admit that there is a defect inasmuch as the immediate superior officers do not recommend strictly in accordance xvith the position of things?— That is so —we recognize that. 103. But you cannot suggest any remedy?—No, I cannot suggest any remedy. As a matter of fact, I do not see how we are going to do more than we are doing —that is, to deal with every case as it occurs. 104. Then, in your opinion the statement in clause 7 made by the Railway Officers' Institute is a correct one, except that the blame must not be fastened on to the Head Office? —My opinion is that the statement made there is practically a charge of dereliction of duty. 105. On whom? —On the members immediately in control of the men. 106. Supposing it xvere so, is it your opinion that that charge can be substantiated?—l have submitted cases which shoxv that there are instances in xvhich the right thing has not been done, and xvhich the Head Office has taken up very strongly. 107. Mr Ross.] With regard to the Bluff position, xvhere you promoted an eighth-grade man to a sixth-grade station, I understand that you informed the Committee that the reasons the Department had for doing that was because you had no suitable man in the seventh grade?— Are you speaking now of the present appointment or the previous appointment? 108. I am speaking of the man appointed from the eighth grade to the position of Stationmaster at the Bluff, which xvas at the time of appointment in the sixth grade?— Well, I cannot say now xvithout looking the matter up. I have no information just at the present moment, and it is hardly to be expected that I can carry my mind back over every appointment made in the Railxvav service during the last six or seven years and the reasons therefor. 109. If I say that in giving evidence before the Committee you said that the reason of the appointment of the man from the eighth grade to the six-th grade xvas that you had not a suitable man in the seventh grade, will you say you did not give that evidence? —I am prepared to stand on the evidence I gave, and, further, I have no doubt the facts will be found to be as I stated at the time—that is, that at the time of the appointment there xvas no other man found to be suitable for the position. 110. Are you prepared to state that nt the time the appointment xvas made that was the only person found to be suitable for the position? —In the opinion of the officers responsible for making the appointment. 111. In the circumstances, hoxv do you account for the fact that Mr. Johnston, of Auckland, who for a long number of years had bad experience at Port Chalmers and might be considered a satisfactory officer for the Bluff, xvas actually appointed to this position and the appointment was cancelled and no explanation xvas given?—l cannot say at the moment what xvas done in Johnston's case. I would have to look it up, and I am satisfied I will then be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the position. 112. I understand the object of the Department in causing the Chief Traffic, Manager to visit the various centres at least annually is to enable him to confer with the District Officers with the object of securing a uniform standard of efficiency in the wav of recommendations, and that the Chief Traffic Manager examines into the recommendations made by the District Traffic Managers with reference to the members of the staff on bis section; is that so?— That is one of the purposes for which the Chief Traffic Manager and other heads of branches have to visit the districts. 113. That is one of the objects of the visits of the Chief Traffic Manager to those districts?— I have alreadx' stated that the objects of the heads of the various branches—l am not going to single out any particular officer —in visiting the districts when making the annual review of the staff is to enable them to confer on the spot with the officer in charge of the district and such of the men as are in immediate control of the staff as they consider should be consulted and to reviewon a common standard, xvhich has already been arrived at, and to see that all recommendations are dealt with on that standard. As far as I recollect that standard was fixed ten years ago at least. 114. If the standard was fixed ten years ago and District Officers were fully informed of the standard, xvbv is it necessary noxv to ask the heads of the branches of the service to make an annual visit for this purpose?— Simply because xvhere you have crot 13.000 men there are constant cbanrres and you have to have them reviewed year by year. That is contemnlited by the Classification Act, and by the regulations. That, is necessary in the interests of the Department and the public, and necessarx' in the interests of the staff and of efficiency. If the argument is to be nnpl'od in the direction of saying that you should tret one recommendation in the year 1911 and