IN BOILING VAT.

Auckland Star, Volume LXV, Issue 70, 23 March 1934, Page 3

IN BOILING VAT.

MAN'S FATAL SCALDS.

COMPENSATION DISPUTE.

APPEAL COURT HEARING.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.)

WELLINGTON, Thursday.

Whether the late James Smillie, who was employed by the Rangitikei Cooperative Dairy Company as factory manager at Bulls, was a worker within the meaning of the term in the Workers' Compensation Act,' was a question the Court of Appeal was ask£d to deter-

mine to day

In July last Smillie was precipitated into a vat of boiling water and died later as a result of his injuries. Subsequently his widow, Mary Ellen Smillie, issued a writ against the company claiming £3000 damages, and alleging that the death of her husband was due to negligence or breach of duty on the part of the company. This action was dismissed on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence or breach of duty on the part of the defendant. Counsel for plaintiff then applied under the Workers' Compensation Act to have the question determined whether the defendant company was liable to pay compensation.

Definition of " Worker." The only question in dispute between the parties was whether deceased was at tile time of his death a person "employed otherwise than by way of manual labour" within the definition of "worker" in section 2 of the Workers' Compensation Act. After evidence for the defence had been taken, the judge adjourned the proceedings, referring the question to the Full Court.

The Court of Appeal to-day heard argument on the question of the defendant company's liability.

Mr. P. E. Baldwin, of Palmers ton North, who, with Mr. J. M. Gordon, appeared for plaintiff, said that Smillie had not been paid wages, but an amount at the end of each season, which fluctuated according to the amount of butterfat turned out by the company. He had been employed for over eight years, and t exceeded £400 only in the year of his death. Mr. Baldwin submitted that deceased was not employed otherwise than by way of manual labour.

Manager's Duties. It was common ground, submitted counsel, that all factory managers were working men, and part of their duties' was manual labour. Smillie was continually engaged in manual work in his duties to keep the buildings and machinery in efficient condition. His employment covered the manual labour of every employee. This was not voluntary work, but an integral part of his duties, and took practically the whole of his time. Mr. Baldwin submitted that a man was employed by way of manual labour if manual labour was done as a necessary part and in the course of the normal duties which he must fulfil, and was not clearly incidental.

For the defendant company, Mr. A. B. Brodie submitted that legal authorities, when applied to the present case, were conclusive in favour of the defendant. He dealt with evidence given in the Court below, particularly that relating to the employment of Smillie at £410 per annum, plus the use of a house, and contended that an examination of his duties showed beyond all doubt that Smillie had been manager and not a manual worker. The Court reserved decision.