Arbitration Court.

Bush Advocate, Volume XIV, Issue 16, 18 April 1902, Page 2

Arbitration Court.

A sitting of tbe Arbitration Court was held at Dannevirke yesterday evening to hear two cases in wbich compensation was claimed under the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act. Mr Justice Cooper and Messrs S. Brown and li. Slater, members of tho Court, heard the claims.

Tbe first case was that of S. G. Bunuiug v. E. Omundsen, claim £10 los. Mr ri. M. Blakiston appeared for the claimant, and Mr Lloyd for respondent. The facts of the case were agreed to on both sides, but Mr Lloyd contended, for the defence, that bushfelling: was uot an employment t» which tbe Act applied. E. T. Omundsen, the respondent, gave evidence to the effect that he was a farmer residing afc Tepepkuku ; he took a contract from the Assets v Realisation Board to fell 214 acres of bush at Mangatoro ; he admitted thai bushfelling and fencing wero his principal occupations. The claimant was in the employ of respondent when he met with an accident.

Mr Lloyd argued that bushfelling was not an industrial occupation, so far as respondent was concerned, and did not come within the meaning of the Act. The defendant was merely a contractor, and bushfelling could not be called an industry. This contention created a discussion between Mr Lloyd and Mr Justice Cooper aa to tbo meaning of the word " rndus* trial."

In giving judgment. Mr Justice Cooper stated that the Court reserved its decision on tbe point as to whether farming operations came .within the meaning of the Act. The Court held tbat it was "evident Omundsen's chief occupation was that of a contractor, .and he came within the meaning of 'subsection 1 of section 4 of the Act. The object of the statute was to give compensation to workers who met

with accidents not due to then: own negligence," It was quite clear that bushfelling was an iadustrial work, and when carried on by a contractor as part of his trade or business, and a person engaged as a worker met with an accident, he could recover from tha contractor. Judgment wa3 given for the amount claimed, £10 los, solicitors' fee £3 3s, and costs. W. H. Smith v. John Clark, olaim £121 3s. Mr Patterson appeared far the claimant, and Mr P. S. McLean (of Napier) for the respondent. The claimant uiet with an accident while employed at bushfelling on the' property of the .' respondent, and tha former sought to recover £21 3s, half wages during disablement, and £100 damages. The accident was admitted. "V^. H. Sdttth, the claimant, deposed that he went with W. Peck as a partner in a bushfelling contract, and while engaged on .. it met with aa accident, a tree tailing on him. He suffered ay compound fracture of the leg, He had been, in the hospital for eighteen weeks, and. although he was able to get about, bis leg was sot strong enough to permit of his doing, the same amount of work &* formerly. While bushfelling he had earned £2 7s a week, but duce the accident was able to earn only £1 a week, The leg was weak and shorter than formerly. W. Peck, of Waione, gave evidence to the effect that he took a contract to fell bUßh,froin bis brother, who had taken the contract from Clark. Clark was in the employ of Mr Franklin, and the latter transacted the former's business. * The witness understood it was Clark, who .owned the land, and that it was he wiio had to pay for the work done. Sergeant. Smith, and WitnO?S were partners, and neither of them received wages. Dr Macallan gave evidence of hia having attended Sipith in August last for a fraptured leg.7 StHUth's- leg had been recently examined by hiuj, and there was every indication that in about six "-. mouths it would be as strong as ever. For the defence Mr McLean submitted that the claimant was a partner and as such' could not' recover. A lengthy argument ensued between the Court and Mr- McLean as to the in. terpretation of the Act regarding the meaning of the term " worker," Mr McLean contending that there musfc be the relationship of master and servant to euable the claimant, to recover. The meaning of the term " industrial " also caused touch discussion, Mr McLean contending that those who work ou the land are always excluded from the term, whiah included artisans and mechanics. The legislature had left out all reference to land from the Act and, therefore, a farmer did not come within its operations. He also sub-, mitted that the respondent was not a farmer, and farming was no part of his business as he was in the employ of another. In contending tb^t bush, felling did not come withiu the meaning of sub-section 2 of sub-section 4, the meaning of the term "direotly"* caused an argument. Mr MoLean'(\ contention was that cutting down -~ trees could not be said to be doing something " directly " to the land. Mr McLean also submitted that the claim was excessive. Mr Justice Cooper agreed that the

olaimantmustfirstestablishthat he was a worker within the meaning of the Act and then he would have to showthat the work related directly to tbe land.

Mr Patterson contended that the claimant was a worker within the meaning of the Act ; that he was a piece-worker at 2os an acre (and not a contractor) ; that there was an implied contract for piece-work to fell 40 acres of bush at 25s an acre ; tiiat bushfelling was an industrial work as manual labour had to be employed; that bushfelling was hazardous work within the meaning of the Act; and that' it related directly to the land andy therefore, section' 15. applied. In. reply to Mr Justice Coopei*, Mr Patterson said he would not say that if the whole 40 acres had not been felled his client would have been eutitled as to payment for so much of the work had been done. Judgment was reserved and will probably be given at a sitting of the Court to be held shortly at Napier.