Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

5 articles on this Page

JU.ILWAY SERVANTS' HOURS.

News
Cite
Share

JU.ILWAY SERVANTS' HOURS. j>0j Committee of the House of Commons ap- ljfv to inquire into the hours of labour of railway Jjj ^8 have taken the following evidence, Sir ho'el Ifickfi-Bach presiding. w THE CAMBRIAN RAILWAY. r Job Hood, formerly stationmaster at Mont- fiefoery. on the Cambrian Railway, who gave evidence fche committee last Sessions, was called by the and asked w hether he desired to make a Witness, with considerable emotion, read a Bt»tement to the effect that he had been dis- *rom terv'ce °* fcbe Cambrian Railway after Wo r8' 011 account of the evidence he gave 'e the committee. Immediately he returned from l H- n he was told to give up his keys, and received to onth's salary in lieu of notice. The directors did It ten him the reason for his dismissal, but he knew on account of bis evidence. Mr Hood said he *4j(jeved that the directors were annoytd because he w the permanent way was rotten, Witness was temporarily employed as a Clerk at Newtown at 3n»t* Week. He appealed to the committee for <J*. »8 all his miif'Ttvnss had arisen in consequence evidence given before them, and concluded by several testimonials in his favour- irman here addressed Mr Harford, secretary Vl(jh.e Amalgamated Society of Railway servants, »Hit ^timated that he had sent a letter to the com- stating that he was not prepared to give ei>ce by railway servants in consequence of ^missals and punishments of servants who given evidence, mentioning the dismissal of one Spinks. Were there any other cases? j Harford.—There is the case of a signalman ^trl- Thomas, on the Cambrian Railway, who was !S8e(*> and a driver, who was reduced. These fa^en on niy society's funds, and I don't o.*|t quite fair M. H. Beach.—We look at it on other grounds }(rely. Have you any others? a.* Harfon).—No. H. Beach,-Can you trace these ? vj Harford.—Yes I can give the addresses. the l^ood, in i -a-examination, said he adhered to o'idence he originally gave to the committee. At We interview both Mr Conacher and himself Cd that he was buspended when he was station- er at Ellesmere because he signed a memorial jv4sr0nr (f Humphreys, who had been suspended. Mr Milvain.—The Board of Trade Inspector iJ^ted that the Ellesmere accident was owing fta fofi 8ence, but witness beiieved it was owing to the *>ev °* P<"rman*nt way which the Inspector ^w*r8aw. At the Board of Trade inquiry he did not ?Qything about the permanent way. He waB very W°U8 that it should be proved that Humphreys V on duty 44 hours, but Mr Conacher had made 8 different statements as to the person who relieved t|) At the Crewe interview Mr Conacher admitted Mt °Q ,lle morniag after the Ellesmere accident the 1L attributed the accident to the state of tht> fPem. Co unber evidence was taken with reference to this j Patiy on Monday. Humphreys said he was a porter at Ellesmere on the Cambrian Railway iu November, 1887, the teTnen bered the accièent which occurred there on Vjjo horning of the 6th of that month. He sent an to the Committee,—The Chairman Will you sLit? —Witness then read the affidavit which he I Vi'6 ^as ^rue aQd correct. The cause of the accident t,lat the Ievar had a flaw in ifc and the sleePers ^ere rotten. But the inspector sent down by the °f Trade did not mention these things because ^,? ^ere removed before he came down to the scene • acc»dent. Mr Conacher, the geueral manager, 1l1t ttl his evidence that all the materials were there th e inspector to see, but that statement was false. till d Chairman: We want to hear when you came Hj0 Qty. Witness I went on duty on Friday morn- the 4th of November, at seven o'clock. I re- on duty till Sunday night after the accident. Chairmain ^t what hour ? Witness Until o'clock, I think I could not exactly say. tL."e Chairman The statement we have received is t^ y°u were on duty from the morning of Friday, th *tb, until 5 o'clock on the morning of Sunday. Is {Correct? Witness Yes, 44 hours.-Who was with Ie 1 the box during that time ? There is no box at W Btliere.—Who was in the room with you ? There 8 passenger booking Clerk. —On the Friday night ? I 8ay f°r certain whether the booking clerk was that night.—Why did you tell Inspector Rich V you came on duty at eight o'clock on Saturday e IJlng ? I was told to do so by the statiourriatiter.- •jvJ you told a lie ? I did at that time. Cle. he Chairman at this point ordered the room to be the public being readmitted, witness in reply George Trevelyan, said he went on duty on night because there was nobody else to do so. thit4ighttnan Roberts had gone away. He did not Robinson, the booking clerk, was there. V,08on eame on at three o'clock on the Saturday 'or that was the first train from Oswestry, he lived. tL y Mr Channing.—Stokes, a guard, waB not on doty Weight. V Mr Crawford—He could not say whether he O.P&id for the full 44 hours or not, for he did not by the hour, but by the day. One day of the ^ould be put down in another man's name, and 'd I)ney would be banded over to him. Such things W ^en done, but he could not remember whether it ^°ne on occasion or not. If a man worked days and two nigbts on the Cambrian Railway the Pany would not put it all down to him, but would Pa,t of it in some other man's name. The t^6 ^Uma-ter aeked him to tell a lie about his hours at kiltie of the Board of Trade inquiry. '• Crawford: What did he say ? Witness He said, ^"st not make our hours too long. Say you 6 Ot> at eight o'clock."—And you said so ? YeB. I not know I was going to get dismissed then. y Sir A. Rollit.I did not state on oath at the rd of Trade inquiry that I came on at eight o'clock. W other member of the Coinmitue asking any b e Chairman (to witnees).—You can go. Kingston was next recalled. He said he i|) .^drivtr on the Cambrian Railway, and had been "e service of the corrpany for seventeen years. V appeared as a witness before the Committee last and since he gave evidenoe he had been punished Wu-^dneed. On the 29th June he was shunting at 1Uv°h and got the fngine off the rails. There train ou the engine, no one was injured, and t" pennyworth of damage was done. Such accidents Of &ot unusual, and the usual punishment was a fine foray's pay. Witness was, however, suspended for teen days, and then reduced from the po-ition of 11 ""d extra driver tn that of fireman, thus a Wf He was reinstated on his own 'c*tion on November 30th. at the same wages as he tatt^y had, and ai present he was a driver with \i^r Since the committee connr.eticed this \y'r^ the men ou the Cambrian Riilway had been UP- ^IIJ'rmau Then I think you ought to pass a A>.°f thanks to the committee. (Laughter). ed Thomas was the next witness. He said he A^j^udeuce before the committee on the 21st of *t^j| last—then being a signalman on the Cambrian NS(.^ay at Oswestry. When he got back the station- informed him that pay would be deducted for TiL1,11e he had been away. litirnil-n-B"t YOU were paid by the com- ilias YeF, but the company issued a. th ar telling wr would not suffer in any respect. t)lt e Citaii-m. a-You gut all you asked from us, did .a itness-Yes, but not as much as it cost •V After$!ettiug back he felt he was a marked man. Jr \ng, hnother -A itness, who was iu the same signal ^*8 shifted and made a goods guard. He could w hether he got increased pay by the change. 'er hignaiman named Thompson m as put in the witne-s was made a porter on the platform, NtkQ ci0lls> quence of a difference of opinion about the and he quarrelled. Thompson accused drunkenness. Two other witnesses were ready '8r that lie was perfectly sober. The matter was '» < d, aud the manager took Thompson's statement, ^iij days the stationmaster came to witness, and V«harl' received a wire from the manager to dis- minute's notice. He wasthen dismissed, jJ-hoj, George Trevelyan—He quarrelled with ^Pson bee .use he found out that Thompson, who Put in the signal-box to ascertain whether his 11 CC« Mas correct, had left out some cf the duties *vi<}tt)rt'Pori; to the stitirmmaster. Witness's original tin, ) 1ft al quite correct. ial.1. ol\acher, formerly general manager of the Cam- h *ay' a"d at present geueral manager of the tk'd h tisli Railway, was the next witness. He I 6 VVas acquainted with the evidance given before ^(j^'V'initte of Sta'ionmaster Hood. Witness oil dtit ill the book containing the entries of the meu rj f th litn- OIL the Friday and Saturday nights at the time b Ms J. es,"ere accideut. He also handed in the pay- Jr'd i"g the signatures of the men who were thMs iV nK fluty on those nights. By those pay- WA"( sho« IJ that, Ilohinf on signed for a pay- Igl.1ei for Friday night's duty, and Humphreys p'r ^at"rdi»y night's duty. \V>Pl,J";i,,rn ;l1—There is no dispute, is there about itt)e,' ys^being ou duty on the Saturday night?— th *1 s.\ 'n briber examination, said he originally v^ {"fj, 'v°hinsop, the night nun, was on duty on '*y "'g-it, but that waa a mistake. As a L|^t. Q ;'t iti hiiiBOii was not on duty on the Friday e tl th' c^'iy a-Ttr Hood had given ivider.ee 6 lolf COrnK!itto- he w.io'e a letter to witness to OW1,.g erfect 11, giving my evidence yesterday the question was asked me if Humphreys was on duty 44 hours, and I replied that he was, except thehours he was aw*y at meals. You may think this very strange, knowing that I was aware that Robinson was put down in the pay-sheets for one nignt. and when I saw this in your office I had grave doubts as to Humphreys being on duty. The matter then came upon me rather suddenly, end I could not recollect the facts." The letter proceeded that Hood was now con- vinced that Humphreys was on duty on the Friday night and that a satisfactory explanation could be given as to why Robinson was put down on the pay- sheet." The writer also stated that it was impossible for him to know that the question would be put' about Humphreys' hours. The Chairman here observed that in the original statement handed in by Hood the witness had referred to that very point. Witness, resuming., said that in consequence of Hood's statement before the committee and inquiry was made as to the person who filled in the block telegraph book on the Friday night, as the hand- writing was not that either of Humphreys or Robin- son. It was eventually ascertained to he the writing of an assistant guard named Stokes. An application was discovered at Oswestry Station dated Nov. 16, 1887, from an assistant guard named Stokes, asking for payment for taking duty all night at Ellesmere on the night of the 4th (the night in dispute). That payment was made. Witness subsequent to Hood evidence got a letter from him, stating that both Robinson and Humphreys were on duty on the Friday night. Witness next referred to the accident, denying that the permanent way was removed at the point where the accident happened. He had the engineer present to prove the condition of the permanent way. The accident was caused by the points being half set, and that was the conclusion anived at by the Government Inspector. The only sleepers removed were thos, destroyed by the engine after it left the rails. Hoode writing to witness after the accident, intimated that his suspension in consequence of signing a memorial about Humphreys became known in consequence of Mrs Hood mentioning it to a lady and to the vicar of the parish. (Laughter). Witneos next dealt with the matter of Hood's doubts as to whether he should get his railway fare to London when he went to give evidence returned to him. The usual course was followed in this case. Hood's application for a pass was received too late to be granted, and he was told to buy a ticket and the money would be refunded. If Hood had not cared to trust his (Mr Conacher's) promise he would have had a claim on the company, as they had undertaken that the servants should suffer no loss. Just a few days before Mr Hood had got his wife's fare returned in the same way. Mr Couacher then read the report of the interview at Crewe between Mr Hood and the directors, at the beginning of which Mr Hood was aeked to justify the^evidence he had given before the committee, and was?.jnforti>ed that he was not dismissed because he gave evidence. The Chairman You are aware that Mr Hood deuies the accuracy of some of the statements in that report ? —Witness Yes, and I am prepared to produce the shorthand writer as to its accuracy. Mr Conacher asked to be allowed to say something with regard to Mr Hood's statement that after he returned to work after giving evidence h* was a marked man, and that every little delay of a train was inquired into." Well, it would be a curiously- managed railway If every delay of a train were not inquired into. He found that there were in July four cases of delay-one of eight minutes, one of ten, one of thirty, and one of twenty-six. While on the same subject he might say that soon after Mr Hood got back to Montgomery he applied for two days leave of absence during Bank Holiday week, in order that he might visit Kent. It was a very unusual thing to give a stationmaster leave at such a busy time but witness at once granted the leave asked for. Witness's examination was not concluded when the committee adjourned until Thursday,

CEMMES FARMERS' CLCJB.

Advertising

Iimperial parliament

Advertising