ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1167, 30 June 1911, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

SHIPPING CASE, POSITION OF MASTERS UNDER THE ACT.' The Court of Arbitration concluded its Wellington sittings yesterday. Mr. Justice Sim (president), Mr. W. Scott (employers' representative), and Mr. J. A. M'Cullough (workers' representative) were on the Bench. The question whether masters and officers of ships should be included in ono award was argued. By reason of analogy with other trades, tho question is one of wide interest.

Tho Merchant Service Guild, which includes both masters and officers, recently filed with the Conciliation Commissioner certain claims as to working conditions. The assessors for the shipowners objected to dealing with both classes of employees at once, and as tho parties could not agree, and au authoritative ruling was desired, a easo was stated for the Arbitration. Court.

Mr. T. S. Weston appeared for the shipowners, and Mr. A. L. Herduian for the guild.

Mr. Weston said tho positions of the masters and the officers were diametrically opposed, and iu the interests of the public, as well as the shipowners and the masters and officers themselves, tho masters ought not to bo brought into an award on the application of a body in which the controlling power was wielded by the officers. He ,suggested that tho Aci was defective in not providing an opportunity for employers to challenge the constitution of a union. Previous decisions of tho Court went to show that ehip masters should bo allowed to form a union apart from the officers; The definitions in the ■ Shipping and Seamen's Act included officers with the seamen . and placed the captains in a class by lb«/> selves. Tho master was the guardian of the employer's interests, and of tho interests of shippers. He was a confidential servant, an overseer, and almost a deputyemployer. Hβ had control over.the ship, and contracts made by him bound tho owners. Thirty-six masters were concerned iu these proceedings. If a joint award were made, every member of tho union would have a corporate interest contrary fo the interest of the owners, and tho owner would have nobody to watch over his interests when tho ship was at sea. lhe authority of tho master would bo undermined, and discipline would suffer. The Court had excluded foremen from awards, and unions had recognised tho saino principle in their rules. to*. Herdman said it had been admitted that a master was a worker, and there was at Auckland a separate award dealing with masters only. The guild was registered under the Arbitration Act, and that registration could not now be attacked. The institution had been in existence ten years, and had always consisted of masters and other officers. Its certificate of registration under the Arbitration Act as a union entitled tho guild to come to the Court and ask thai tho conditions under which its members were employed should bo regulated in the manner provided by the Act. The Court certainly had a discretion as to whether it would grant an award or not, but ho submitted that it was only in extremo cases, whero the conditions of .employment could not bo fixed, that tho Court would refuse to. make an award. Tho only question was whether it was possible to mako an award that would bo workable. The questions as to whether it was in tho interest of the employers, the public, the masters, or the officers that there should bo ono institution and one award were riot questions for tho Court. As to discipline and tho authority of the master, his duties on board wero very clearly defined; he had to obey the law, and he was in supreme command, and counsel could not seo how an award would undermine his authority. Thcro could be one award givin; different terms for masters and officers. Decision was reserved. •"■-■ STATUTORY HALF-HOLIDAY. ■ GROCERS'TEST CASE. The case of Bollard v. Wnrdell Bros, and Co.—a test case for; interpretation .oi. lhe Wellington Grocers' Award—came before tho Arbitration Court yesterday. Having given their omployees a holiday on tho King's Birthday (Juno 3), tho master grocers did not pay them overtime for work done on the afternoon of Wednesday (May 31), which ordinarily would havo been observed as tho statutory weekly lialf-holiday. Tho defendants wero accordingly charged with failing to ■ an assistant overtime rates for working upon the statutory half-holiday mentioned. Tho plaintiff, who is an inspector on tho local staff of the Labour Department, conducted his own case, Mr. T. S. Weston appeared for the defendant. His Honour: Why is not the Department represented by counsel? Mr. Bolland: Tho Department thought the matter was so simple. His Honour': Oh, just so! It may turn out to be anything but simple. If it is worth while having tho point argued, it is worth while having it argued by counsel. It is not fair to the inspector, it is not fair to the Department, or to the Court to havo it argued otherwise. The inspector then began to open tho case, but had not got very .far with it— his Honour interposing more than once— when Mr. Weston suggested it might bo better for him to open. His Honour thought this might assist' the Court. Mr, Weston said that when ono of the holidays granted by the award occurred, the master grocers did not givo the svatntory half-holiday in tho same, week. Such had been the custom of tho trado throughout the period covered by awards, the first of which was made in 1902. Thev had construed tho award in terms of the Shops and Offices Act, and they held that "statutory closing day" meant not simplv the day of tho week fixed for the half-holiday, but either thai! day or any other day that was actually observed in lieu thereof. The award used the words of the Act, and tho term "statutory closing day" in the <"™« l must mean the same as in tho Act. Ihe maximum of 52 hours had not been exceeded in the week in question. Mr. Bolland said the Department relied upon the wording of tho elauso in tho award. Tho statutory half-holiday was the half-holiday fixed by tho local authority, and when a general half-holi-day occurred in the same week the statutory half-holiday was still there, although the shops wero not required to clofc'e. His Honour said that even if the Department's argument wore correct, tho workers wero not entitled to overtime, as the 52 hours were not exceeded in the week. If any breach had been committed it was in not fixing the hours in accordance with Clause 1 of the award, as interpreted by the Department. Decision was reserved.

A SAD CASE,

AND DIFFICULT FOR TIIE COURT. Alfred Abraham Bate, labourer, claimed a lump sum approximating .£386 from ilis employer, Joseph Ncal, contractor. Mr P J O'Jiegau appeared lor tho plaintiff, and Air. W. H. D. Bell for the defendant. . The plaintiff, who was a coal trimmer, fell down a bunker hold on tho s.s. Hiimitnka, and suffered serious injuries. He was incapacitated for work, and tho main question at issue wits whether the incapacity bo permanent. Alico Maud Hale, wife of the. plaintiff, said her husband had fallen down in the street many times in fit?, eiuce his accident, and she had to be always with him. lie lud tits four or iivo times a week, when lio became unconscious for a minute and a half and fell down. Dr. Jlardwick Smith, superintendent of tho Wellington Hospital, said Bate was admitted to I ho hospital two days after tho accident, .iurf was now an out-paliunl. Witness lUwiibed the injuries, which were chiefly iil'out the-held and neck. He was a complete physical and mental wreck and his condition in both respects was worse now than at the time just aft«r the accident. His future was problematical, but ho would never apam be ablo to do his former work. It was imHorUii.r that the present case should bo fiiiislii'J as soon as possible so us to relieve him of tho worry of it. ITo was suffering from neurasthenia. Dr. Fyffo also said Bate would, never be. able to do hard work again. Dr. A. W. Hogg said that in his opinion tho plaintiff would never recover. Jtr. Bell said tho object of defending tho case was not to l)<wt down the plaintiff, with whom every sympathy must be

felt, and (here was no suggestion of sham-. roiiig, but it was submitted that if the case were KOttlo'J by awarding a weekly payment tho man's anxiety would Ijo relieved and he would begin to get better.

His Honour: Wo havo a great deal of experience of cases of neurasthenia iu this court and wo find wo have to uiakfl a shot at it and nward a iuran sum. Mr. O'Rcgan said tho plaintiff was already getting a weekly payment. In view of medical advice to bring the caso on at onco and get it definitely settled, ho could not agree to this.

Dr. 11. C. Faulko, iu his evidence, said it was srontial that tho patient should have less to do with doctors and lawyers than he had had recently. Frequent medicnl examinations mid sitting over tho fire between whiles brooding over his condition were very bad for him. • It was mainly a ease of neurasthenia and muscular stiffness. Witness lind never known a case of neurasthenia that did not rocover.

Mr. O'Rcgan: What tToatmont do you suggest?—"No treatment at all. Let him havo tome occupation like feeding fowls." Jlis Honour, after conferring with tho other members of tho Court, said that they thought it desirablo in cases of neurasthenia, whenever possible, to award a lump sum. Tho difficulty iu this caso ■was that tho doctors seemed unablo to ray how !oiig tho incapacity would last. Tho Court hod decided to assume that it would last two years from the present time, and the compensation would therefore amount to ,£2OO, in addition to what had been already paid. Judgment was given accordingly for .£2OO, with witnesses' expenses and costs.