COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 218, 8 June 1908, Page 2

COURT OF ARBITRATION.

RESERVED JUDGMENTS. ALLEGED ILLEGAL DISMISSALS. HELD :• CHARGES NOT ESTABLISHED. ' Tho Court of Arbitration on Saturday delivered judgment in the caso between tho Lispector or Awards and. the Stewart Timber, Glass, and Hardware Company, Ltd. . Respondent firm was alleged to have; committed offences.under section'-lOS.of tho Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905, by dismissing from its.employment, on March 28, 1903, two workers named Charles ■ Maddison and Jno. Chester, merely because they wore entitled to the benefit-of an award made on December 19, 1907. His Honour said'that inordor to establish ■ a caso under _the section in question: it was : necessary for 1 the applicant to prove clearly ■ that the employer in' dismissing a»' worker was moved to do ; so solely by the fact that' such worker was entitled to tho benefit-- of an award or agreement. The dismissal iir tlie present cases did not take' place 'irnrne- . diately after the award was made, but at..: tlie 'first weekly pay day after: the Court •' had decided that under the award Maddison ,■ was a yardman and entitled to bo paid 15..2 d. ' per hour, and Chester- a first sawyer and: , entitled to be paid Is. 3d. .per. hour. .'After : tho award'camo into force, Maddison'had been treated as a yard labourer.'and paid v ls. per hour, and' Chester, had been: treated ... as a second" sawyer and paid Is. 2d. per hour. .'

Evidence had, his Honour continued, boon . culled on behalf of'the respondent, to prove • that, in the. opinion of his foreman, Maddison's services were not worth to the re- ' spondent the higher, wage to which the •• court held him to' be entitled, and that he ' ' was, therefore, replaced'by a worker li&med Connolly, who had previously worked for the respondent for somo years. . The mini- : mum wage fixed by' the".''award for a yardman amounted to. £2 13s Bd. per. week,. and: Connolly was paid £2 15s. per week. Maddi-/ son, who had'been paid £2 65.-per week as ai ; yard laboureiy waß/employed at the be- ; . ginning of the following week, as a worker, in respondent's iron store at £2 7si 6d. per week, and at the date of the shearing was still working there. Respondent's foreman ; advised Mr. Stewart to dismiss Chester, because, in his opinion, a better man could, bo obtained for the wageß payable-to a first'saivyor. He was dismissed in accordance with tliis advice, and another -workpr put on in his place. ' The court tfas of opinion that;'in view of all the circumstances, the explanation, in . connection with the dismissal of" 'Maddison • was satisfactory,' and . that. theworker was ' dismissed becauso he was not considered t« bo ■ worth 'the wages of. a yardman./, The. . other case was, however, somewhat'different,' and the 'circumstances attending the.'dismissal of Chester raised a doubt as to whether' : that dismissal was not duo • Bolely-to-the • - fact of the worker having claimed the benefit of the award, but the court did. not. fee?,. • justified in finding on the evidence that J',-. had been conclusively proved that Chestei was dismissed 1 merely becauso ■ho was en« titled to the benefit of the award. The appli - cations in • both cases would, therefore, bt .- dismissed.' ..i , . Mr., Mipiilloughv:did ? ; il.ot'iconcur -in th«j:; .judgment.:-- He>wasrsatisfied'.that:,the mon . .- wore dismissed merely'.becaiiso/rthey,.were ,en- . ■. ■ titled to'the benefit .of.rtbo, award;,; v ... t ' ; ■ Mr. D.-.-M. •, Findlay. appearedvon (behalf -of tho- inspector,.;and. Mr.. V T.,,Young.for,-. respondents. .... .• i i: ;CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. JUDGMENT FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

Judgment was also delivered in the comI ponsation case between Ernest Radford ' Hodgkinson (claimant) and'J.-J. K. Powell • (respondent). ... - .. • ! 'Tho facts briefly.were that; on April 11, .1900, claimant was working in respondent's : . • quii'rry at .Pencarrow. Head. Whilst eni gaged iiijloading:boxes-with metal, a bouldei. . I. roiled down from .the face and struck, him ... •on•••the' left ankle. Ho was examined by > Dr. Mackin on April .17, and found to bo • suffering from sprain and contusion of the - ankle joint. Rest, immersion iii hot water, • local applications, and tight bandaging, were ■ proscribed. Claimant was ■ informed, that _it ■'• would take some weeks .to cure the spraih. • ' On April' 28,-claimant arranged with re- ' I spondent to return 1 to work, aha, after-work-i , ing from the following Thursday to the Saturday, lie . returned' ! to- Wellington. •' "Subso-. - ■: quently lie worked-' on the Harbour Board i dredge for six or eight weeks, on a trawler. •: : i for some months, and then at'a flaxmill. i [ During all. this timp his ankle was getting : worse, and on June,2l, 1907, he becarno apatient at the Wcstport* Hospital, where it - ; . was found riece'ssary "to amputate a portion of the leg; Claimant alleged; that'-the amputa- ' tion was rendered . necessary bj', the injury caused by the accident in respondent's : quarry, and claimed £$00 as compensation.- • : The respondent set up • three'defences to the - claim:—(l) -that the condition which ron-, dered the amputatibn • necessary did - not result - directly •'; from the original injury, Kut was caused by "the claim-/' ant's neglect in not" attending _ pro- ; perly to the, injury; (2)' th'at lio\ claim for ; compensation was made within throe months r after the occurrence of the accident; (3) that on May 9, 1906, claimanti'having re'eovered ' from the injury, gave tho ,: rcspondent''a ! 'dis- ; . charge in full of aH claims in respeit of -• ' such injury. . "'-V- .'• The Court was of opinion that 'tho respondent was entitled to succeed oh tlie' ! fastmentioned defence, aiid it was unnecessary, therefore, to consider the 1 flthtt'dcfenoea.-.sofc up. Claimant had. stated...that lie understood tho document lie signed was merely a , receipt for 'the money' he'-had /received "• as' compensation,.'.'." It-' was "clear j'tnat {'at that.. date claimant regarded the injurj'vWa very : slight one. Ho not tako' the. 1 "-!, rouble. : to follow "the cb'urse of treatment prescribed.--' On April 28 he told respondent that'-lie was fit to go to work. 1 Upon leaving rei\ittVident's'. employ a few days later lie was apparently • quite satisfied with, the-settlements d3o*jUd' ' - not make any further claim against re- .' spondent until Juno 1, 1907, wiion l ' hp' kriW> : it had become necessary :to amputate:, his'! foot. A n agreement to end ■ payment* ■ be implied for the conduct "of thoTJftfftie^f'• In the present case there was no necessity el to rely on any implied agreement, l«caSisej.r'"!S. according to tho respondent's-evidenceY-tlibro , : was an express agreement to end"'the';'pay-'-'V'i-moats and to release tho respondent from niiy h. .further domantls when the last suin' ffas;' ?o:. paid to the claimant. The Court was sdfcii-'" ,'>i. ■ lied that the claimant understood perfectly • well what ho wasdoing, and intended, wlimi - \ ho signed the discharge, to release 'the '*&»•,.' •'■' spondnnl; from any further claims in connection with the accident. It was unfortunate for, tho claimant, con-,, tinue<l his Honour, that ho did not realise 'the seriousness of tho injury ho had sus. tained, because his failure to do so niado him careless as to the proper treatment of his injury, and mnde him willing, without • duo consideration of his position, to releaso his possible claim to further compensation. No advantage, however, had been taken Of : : : him by the respondent, who had no reason for doubting tho claimant's statement thatlie was fit to return to work. Before tho ' ' filial settlement on May 9, tho claimant had 1 i worked three days in the quarry,'and he left ' it, r.ot because ho was unfit for the work, but bccause he had obtained work elsewhere. which lie preferred. The fact' that tho. • claimant acted foolishly in releasing respon- . dont from any further claims was no ground for relieving nim from tho agreement which ho had made. The application would,, there-. fore, bo 'dismissed, with 10 guineas ; costs,. . witnesses?! expenses," and disbursements- ■ Mr. O'D.cgan appeared for claimant, mB Mr. Treadwell for the respondents.