PIECE-WORK AND CONTRACT.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20427, 23 December 1931, Page 4

PIECE-WORK AND CONTRACT.

—-♦ DISTINCTION AGAIN DISCUSSED. SEQUEL TO WORKER'S DEATH. The distinction between piece-work and work under independent contract was again the subject of argument in the Arbitration Court yesterday, when the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate of Gordon Ashley Kingsbury, late of Culverden, claimed compensation for Kingsbury's death from Marmaduke Bethel], a farmer, also of Culverden. The question as to whether willow ( trees were to be regarded as standing timber or otherwise was also an important point in the case. Mr Justice '• Frazer presided, associated with him being Messrs W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative) and A. L. Monteith (employees' representative). The statement of claim stated that Kingsbury had been employed at the defendant's farm at "Pahau Pastures," Culverden, in cutting stakes from willow trees. His work and the terms of his employment brought him under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922. On September 30th Kingsbury had received a blow on the chest from a tree which he was felling, and had died as a result of the accident. Kingsbury's average weekly earnings w'ere assessed at not less than £4 2s a week. He had left a widow and two infant children who had been totally dependent, on him. It was denied by the defence that Kingsbury had been employed by the defendant, and that he was a worker within the meaning of the Act. All liability was denied, although the cause of death, as established at the inquest, was admitted. Question of Law. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that Kingsbury had been engaged as a piece-worker, and that, if it was proved that he was an independent contractor, lus work at felling standing timber still brought him within the meaning of the Act. It was submitted that willow trees came under the term of standing timber, and that contractors engaged in felling, timber were entitled to compensation. Witnesses from the Culverden district said that it was customary for men engaged in cutting willows to submit to a certain amount of control by the employer. Counsel for the defence said tbat Kingsbury had been a contractor and that he had provided # his own tools and meals. There was no relevant question of control in the ease, jWitE the gzceg-

tion of matters specified beforehand, Bethell, the employer, could not have interfered with Kingsbury's, v work. There had been no stipulation asto Kingsbury'B personal services. The arrangement had been for a certain number of willdw stakes and both parties would have been bound by law in this respect. On the other hand, if the existent of a contract was tho plaintiff ?s claim based 'rfpon the timber-felling clause in the iCompensation Act did not include as willows. Timber in the accepted 'tfensG meant forest trees or trees in the maiss. The clause in question, counsel submitted, had clearly been framed for the protection of bush-felling contractors. Marmaduke Bethell, the defendant, said in' evidence that he had agreed with Kingsbury to let the work by contract. . Kingsbury had complete control of his own work and Bethell's position was independent apart from the results. The Court reserved its decision.