DEATH OF RELIEF WORKER.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20736, 22 December 1932, Page 4

DEATH OF RELIEF WORKER.

COMPENSATION AWARDED. JUDGMENT AGAINST RANGIORA BOROUGH COUNCIL. The question of liability in respect of the death of a relief worker, Cornelius O'Neill, who was killed by falling from a lorry while travelling from his einplo3"inent, was before his Honour Mr Justice Frazer in the Arbitration Court yesterday. The points in dispute were whether the man had been killed in the course of his employment, and, if so, who was his employer —whether he was engaged by the North Canterbury Electric Power Board,, from whose work he was returning, or by the Rangiora Borough Council, which had allocated the men to the Board and paid them their unemployment wages. The plaintiff was Elizabeth Sarah O'Neill, widow, of liangiora, and defendants were the Rangiora Borough. Council, the North Canterbury Electric Power Board, the Alliance Assurance Co., and the Yorkshire Insurance Co. Decision was ultimately given that the accident had arisen during th« course of his duties and that he had been employed by the Rangiora Borough Council, judgment being given against the Council for £591 Is 4d compensation and funeral and medical expenses. Messrs W. Cecil Prime (employers' representative) and A. L. Monteith (employees' representative) were associated with his Honour on the Bench. Statement of Claim. In her statement of claim, Elizabeth Sarah O'Neill stated that her husband. Cornelius O'Neill, was killed while working for the Rangiora Borough Council and the North Canterbury Electric Power Board on the Tramway road, Ohapuku, on August 30th last, and that he left his wife and four children who had been wholly dependent upon him, as well as four children partly dependent. The average weekly earnings of O'Neill in the 12 months before his death were said to have been £2 16s 10d, and it was alleged that his funeral and medical expenses amounted to £23 18s. Plaintiff had received nothing by way of compensation for her husband's death, and asked the Court to grant her compensation under the Act. In defence, the Rangiora Borough Council denied that O'Neill was in its employment when he was killed, and denied any liability for compensation. The North Canterbury Electric Power Board filed a similar defence. A third party defence was filed by the Alliance Assurance Company, acting with the Borough Council. The Yorkshire Insurance Company, acting with the powor board, was also represented. The Alliance Company denied that O'Neill was killed while iu the employ of the defendant borough. For a further defence they said that if it was proved that O'Neill was the employ of the borough then he was not employed upon council work as an -unemployed relief worker. Mr A. W. Brown appeared for th® plaintiff. Mr 11. C. IX van AscVi for the Borough Council. Mr E. W. Whit* for the Electric Power Board. Mr M. .T. Gresson for the Alliance Assurance Comoanv. and Mr C. S. Thomas for the Yorkshire Insurance Company. The Case Outlined. Mr Brown said O'Neill was umplojed by the Borough Council in liangiora as "a relief worker for some months before his death. Shortly Oetore his death an arrangement was made witn the Electric Power Board that O'Neill and several others should work on the various power lines round the district, and O'Neill, with the rest, thereafter worked until his death under the direct control of the Power Board, though ho was still paid by tho borough council. The work which he had to do was topping t/ees and cutting off branches which fouled the power lines. On the day of the accident the men were working about ten miles from Rangiora. They stopped work about p.m., and started on their way back to the power station. O'Neill was riding bn the back of the lorry, and as it was a windy day he was wrapped in a tarpaulin. A rope attached to the canvas was hanging over tho side and the end of this caught in a wheel, dragging O'Neill over the side and killing him instantly. Mr Brown submitted that O'Neill was at that time still on duty, and had not yet finished his day's work. Evidence for Plaintiff. Evidence was given by the plaintm of her degree of dependence upon her husband, and by George Alfred Newble, a relief worker, who had been employed with O'Neill, and who gave details of the hours of work and evidence of the fact that though they were doing power board worK, they were paid by tho borough council. Francis Patrick Hawley, foreman ot relief workers at Rangiora, said he. had been appointed foreman by tho Town Clerk. He gave details of tho organisation of the relief workers under him, and said that after he had detailed O'Neill and the others to So to the power board, he had 110 further control over them. He had been instructed to send them by the borough council. . . A power board employee, Edward Griffiths, who drove the _ lorry which took the party to their jobs, said he had heard O'Neill was the foreman. All witness did was to pick the nien up and take them to places where there was work to be done. Albert Hill, a relief worker of Rangiora, who was on the lorry when O'Neill was killed, gave evidence that their instructions were to report for duty at 8 am., but they did not know until thev got to the job to what spot they were being taken. Their work was indicated by the lorry driver. Town Clerk's Evidence. James Muir Fraser, town clerk at Rangiora, said that he was secretary to the Unemployment Committee at the time of the accident. The instructions regarding work and money available were forwarded from the Unemployment Board in Wellington. O'Neill had been among sis men allocated to the Power Board for a short period on the application of the Power Board engineer. Hawley had been a relief worker paid by the Unemployment Board for the three weeks of the month, but the Rangiora Borough Council paid his during the stand-down week, to ensure his continued control as foreman. Witness understood from one of the Power Board officers that the Board kept time sheets, though these were not submitted to witness. In answer to Mr White witness said that the men had been insured by the Council, which had qtill-niid tk eir P remium s during their 11p]o P j'mc»t l>? Po,ver Board. Hrf they been engaged for any longer tho men would have been transferred to the Power Board pay-roll. Answering Thomas witness said that some time after the accident the Council had dis- ; cussed the unfairness of the Council , paving the insurance premium ot work- " t * other bodies. , , 6r This" 1 concluded the ease for the plain- , tiff. 5

i ] l The Case for the Power Board. . j 5 Alfred Buckingham, engineer and j > secretary to the Power Board, said that I tho matter of the employment of ■ the j ! relief workers had not been referred to i ; the Board. Ho had approached Mr j ' Fraser, who had agreed to allot the men, witness understanding that the men were Borough Council relief workl ers. Witness offered to supply a truck , for the cartage of equipment, and he . had added that men could ride on t the truck if they desired. Ho had been : told by Mr Fraser that there was no i noed for insurance, as the men were I covered by the Council under a special I policy. Mr Fraser had also stated that > there was no need for the Power Board to keep time sheets. No Power Board officials controlled the men. Griffiths, the ■ Board truck driver, had indicated to ' the men what work ttey were to do, 1 but had had no authority over them. Alfred Francis Lee-Smith, who was assistant to the Power Board engineer at the time of the accident, gave evidence that his instructions from his suporior were that he was to have no connexion with tho relief workers, though he supervised the work of the Board employees. The lorry had been .supplied for transport of the men as well as the tools. Mr Gresson said that the point was: Who had control of O'Neill and the power to dismiss him? There was no . question of whose interest it was to control the men. It was only because O'Neill had been previously employed by the Council and had been engaged through it that the Council had been cited. Mr Thomas submitted that the evidence clearly showed that the relationship of the men had been that of master and servant between them and the Council, but certainly not between them and the Board. It had been Mr Fraser who had appointed O'Neill foreman and had seen about the insurance. In supporting Mr Thomas's remarks Mr White said that the Power Board had not the right to select the men allotted; the men had been controlled by the Council, a fact corroborated by the Council's own witness. j Mr Brown submitted that there was definite evidence that O'Neill was instructed that the men were to be at the power-house at 8 o'clock. Qncc they arrived there they came under the control of someone and could have been ordered to do anything. The daily hours had been fixed, and while travelling to work in the truck after S j o'clock were in employment. j His Honour's Judgment. j Giving i- .lis Honour said that the only two points that mattered was whether O'Neill was killed by accident arising in the course of his employment by either the Council or the Board, and who was his employer. The difficulty in connexion with the first point was that O'Neill had finished actual w rlc and was returning home. It was suggested that there was no obligation on the men to travel oil the motor-lorry, but no one could expect them to travel' 11 to lo miles on bicycles. There was no question that it wat) the duty of the men to travel to and from work in the lorry, and so it. must be held that the body which was i the employer was liable, as the accident j arose in the course of employment, j Speaking to the secoud point his ; Honour said that the local authority employing the men was the Rangiora Borough Council: it had applied for the unemployment grant and was expending it. as authorised under the section of the Finance Act. The work provided ec bad been for unskilled labour, and the 5" Power Board officials had regarded the ln men as employees of the Council, and ac the Council had been willing that the aj men be provided with useful woTk. The

evidence showed that the understanding all through had been that the Council continued to employ the men, the Power Board finding the scope without accepting the rospo:- ibility. Judgment would accordingly be. given -for the plaintiff against the Rangiora Borough Council for £591 Is 4d, funeral and medical

expenses amounting to £23 ISs, £ls 15s costs and witnesses' eipentes-" The Power Board and Yorkshire XnT- j, anec Company were entitled to and witnesses' expenses, these secured from the plaintiff, ment to plaintiff" to' be made unsuccessful defendant. " fl