I.- 6a.

152

\R. W. MCVIU.Y.

no objection at all to any man taking a fair and proper case to the Appeal Board. For instance, I know of a case recently where a man xvas told that he should not do a certain thing. He was told, " It is quite xvrong for you to do this, and you are cautioned for it," and he xvanted to go to the Appeal Board xvith that. Now, in a case of that kind the Department xvould say to him, '' There is nothing in this, you are cautioned and there is an end of it; but if you can show us that that caution has been wrong we will put it right, but there is no appeal against it—it does not affect your position." 52. I xvant to have it placed on record whether the Department has a right to prevent an appeal?—No, we do not contend that at all. 53. Still, the Department has prevented it in the past?— Where a man has said he wants to appeal, if it is a question of caution, we tell him it is a trivial case and does not affect him in anyway, and there is no hardship. If he can show that he has been dealt xvith xvrongfy the Department will put the matter right, but there is no necessity for a case of that sort to go to the Appeal Board to be heard. If a man has a classification case, or he is fined more than £2, or is suspended and then dismissed, then in a case of that kind he can go to the Appeal Board —that is. where a man is likely to be affected. 54. If I told you that the Department has declined to allow a man's notice of appeal to be lodged in a promotion case, xvould you say I am incorrect?—lf he has given his notice within the time specified. There are lots of cases xvhere they do not give notice within the time, and then the Department says No. I know of one case where that xvas done. 55. Do you knoxv anything of the case of G. T. Robinson, a clerk in the Traffic Inspector's office at Christchurch?—No, not from memory. The case I have in my mind xvas a Wellington case. 56. I think you told us that in McKenzie's case the Board gave no decision?— The Board made no recommendation. 57. Neither upheld nor dismissed the man?— They left the matter entirely- to the Minister. 58. Consequently they gave no decision?—l take it they gave a decision and declined to interfere. 59. They had a duty to perform?—l take it the Board gave its decision. District Judge Ward xvas Chairman of that Board, and he was a gentleman who generally gave decisions. 60. But the fact remains that they neither dismissed nor upheld the appeal?— The Board left the matter in the hands of the Department and made no recommendation. 61. In another case you found the Board was incapable of correctly interpreting the regulations?—l said in that case the Board, when dealing with the appeal —if you xvish to have the full facts —had in front of it the Consolidated Statutes, 1908, instead of the Classification Acts of 1901 and 1907, and they gave their decision with that Act in front of them. 62. Or, in other xvords, they gave a wrong judgment through misreading the Act?—l have already stated what the facts were —that is, that the Board dealt with the case with the Act of 1908 in front of them instead of the Act of 1907, and they failed to notice the difference in the wording—that is, that the word "now" in the Act of 1901, xx'hich was the principal Act, was " then " in the Act of 1908. 63. And having failed in each of those cases, you are still of the opinion that the present constitution of the Appeal Board is satisfactory both to the Department and to the staff? —Well, if you xvant me to speak from the Department's'point of view, that is another matter. So far as the staff is concerned, I take it it does not matter xvhat the constitution of the Board is, you will never satisfy the staff, because they expect to get all the decision their way; but so far as the Department is concerned, it has been satisfied xvith the Board, and, as I have already stated, the policy is not to hand over the control of the Railway Department to an irresponsible Board. 64. Mr. Witty.] Do you know of any case xvhere a man has been dismissed and where he has been refused the right of appeal?— Not if he is a permanent employee. A casual hand has no right of appeal. 65. There is no case, then? —Not that I am aware of. 66. Mr. Arnold.] Mr. Mcyilly, xvhat do you term the " Punishment Board "? —The Punishment Board consists of the heads of branches. 67. The particular branch under xvhich the person is charged?—No; generally speaking, it consists of the Stores Manager, the Chief Mechanical Engineer, the Chief Engineer, and the Chief Traffic Manager, and three form a quorum. 68. So that it xvould be that Board that xvould first hear the case?— Yes, the Board makes its recommendation to the General Manager. 69. Can you remember the recommendation of the Punishment Board in Harrington's case? —No, I cannot at the moment. 70. What was the finding of the Appeal Board in Harrington's case? —-I think the Appeal Board took the charitable view of the matter and recommended, I think, that as he was nearing his retiring age he might be rc-omployed ; but that, as I have said, was contrary to the provisions of the Act. 71. From the appeal and decision one might almost take it for granted that the Punishment Board recommended his dismissal? —Yes, very likely. I would not like to say for the moment, but I think they did on account of this clause in the Act, because all the members of the Punishment Board know that where a man is found guilty of drunkenness that is the punishment. 72. The Chairman.'] I think you said that a Judge of the Supreme Court was wanted as Chairman of the Board, so that the decision of the Board should be final? —Yes, that is so. Mr. Ramsay said that in reply to a question from me. 73. Such a position could be met by still having a Magistrate as Chairman of the Board, but by the law making the decision of the Board final? —Yes, that is so; but if you had a Judge of the Supreme Court I take it that by virtue of his powers that the only appeal from his decision would be to the Court of Appeal.