COURT OF ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1393, 20 March 1912, Page 3

COURT OF ARBITRATION.

"AN IMPORTANT POINT." MAGISTRATE'S DECISION APPEALED FliOM. The eittings of the Court of Arbitration wero continued yesterday, when further compensation cases were dofilt with. Atr. Justice Sim presided, and bitting with him wore Messrs. ]{. Scott (employers' representative) and J. A. M'Cullough (employees' representative). W hen tho appeal ease, Lo Cren v. tho Wjljrarapa Fanners' Co-operative Association was called, Air. Ostler said a very important point was raised, for if the decision of tho magistrate was correct, then the power of tho Court of Arbitration, so far as shop assistants wero concerned, was for ever gone in making an award fixing hours other than tho hours in tho Shops and Offices Act. The parties were E. A. Le Cren (Inspector of Awards), appellant, and the Wairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association, Ltd., respondent. Mr. 11. H. Ostler, of tho Crown Law Office, appeared for tho appellant, and Mr. T. S. Weston for tho respondent. The appeal, based on a point of law, was'from the decision of Dr. A. Jl'Arthur, S.M.,- given at Wellington on September 2G, 1011, dismissing an action in which I.c Cren claimed to recover from the Wairarapa Farmers' Co-operative Association the sum of .£lO as a penalty for a broach by the association of clause 4 (a) of the Wellington Grocers' Award. The following were the particulars of the breach alleged in the claim:— "The defendant, in each and every week during the period from April 7, 1911, to August 19, 1911, employed Eric l?oy .Murphy (as a driver only) in excess of tiie weekly limit of hours, exclusive of the* time required for necessary attendance' upon horses, and meal hours, contrary to the provisions of section (4) (a) of the award. At tho hearing before the magistrate tho following facts were either proved or admitted:— (a) That the period for which tho Wellington Grocers' Award was mado expired on April 7, 1911. (b) That from April 7, 1911, to August 19, 1911, the defendant, in each and every week employed Eric l!oy Murphy as a driver only in excess of tho weekly limit of 471 hours, as prescribed by the award, but not in excess of the maximum number of hours per week prescribed by Section G of the Shops and Offices Act, 1911. Upon these facts, the magistrate determined that-no offence had teen committed, and in referring to Section 71 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act, 1908, he remarked that ho interpreted it as saying that up to the expiration of its period all the provisions of the grocers' award were in force, but after the expiration of its period and during its further subsistence it became modified by tho Shops and Offices Act, which was the law then in force. This, in his Worship's opinion, showed tho necessity for getting a new award or securing the renewal of Hie old. The appellant gave notico of appeal against the decision of the magistrate upon the ground that the magistrate was wrong in law in determining that clause i- (a) of the said award is inconsistent with Section 6 of the Shops and Offices Act. 1203. . Aflcr hearing legal argument on 'the appeal, the Court reserved decision. A DISABLED ARM. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. The amount of compensation payablo nas the main point in dispute in the action in which George Dabinctt Ayson, carpenter, of Lower Hutt, proceeded against William Henry Bennett, building contractor, of Wellington. _ Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared for Avsoii, and -Mr. T. Young for Bennett.

It was set out ill tho statement of claim that Ayson was employed as a carpenter by Bennett from June 15, 1911, until July 3, 1911, at a wage ol .£3 per week. In the course of his employment at Courtenay Place, Aj son met with a fall on account of the timber of the ceilinj; of s building giving way. He • sustained comminuted fracture of the lower ends of the bones of the right forearm, and "carpus" and dislocation of the right wrist joint. As a result of these injuries, Ayson was permanently incapacitated from work at his trade'. On November 27, 1911, with tho cuicurrence of Bennett's agent (the Royal insurance Company), Ayson obtained employment at 255. per week. Bennett had paid, thrash the company mentioned, the sum of .£27 in compensation, being IS weekly payments of .£1 10s. Ayson claimed this weeiii.v payment through the period of his total incapacity, or in the alternative a lump sum to be fixed by the Court.

In defence, it was stated that Ayson was working as a carpenter to gaiij a practical knowledge of building to enable him to follow tho profession of architecture, and >t was due to his inexperience and carelessness that he fell from a scaffold and suffered injury. It was admitted that tho accident occurred during the course of Ayson's ■■mployment. After nicdical evidence had been tendered by both sides an adjournment was agreed to, r-o that the .question of further treatment effecting a cure might be tested. Ayson' undertook to submit to further treatment to be provided by Bennett, who, in tho meantime, is to pay Ayson £1 10s. per week.

AWARDED A LUMP SUM. FOB DISABLEMENT ON Cr.P.O. BUILDING. In tho case in which John M'Arthur, labourer, of Wellington, claimed compensation from .T. t and A. Wilson, Ltd., contractors, of "Wellington, the claim was in respect of accidents that occurred at the new post oliice building in Foatherston Street. Mr. A. 11. Hindmarsh appeared for M'Arthur, and Mr. 51. Myers lor J. and A. "Wilson. According to tho statement of claim, tho accidents occurred on June 18, 1910, and on or about June 17, 1911, and M'Arthur claimed that they aroso out of and in- the courso of his employment, and caused permanent injury to tho left arm and right leneo. His average earnings were .£'2 lCs. 3d. From tho date of the first accident, until January IG, 1911, J. and A, Wilson made weekly payments of .£1 Bs. Id. to M'Arthur, and also made the snmo weekly payments to him from the date of the second accident until November 11 last. Now, however, they refused to make such payments. The defence was that th> accident was only of a temporary nature. "Mr. Myers, in opening, explained that the only matter in dispute was the amount to be awarded. Both parties desired that it should bo a lump sum. After hearing evidence, his Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for .£97 lis. Gd.. with costs seven guineas, and witnesses expenses'to he fixed by tho Registrar. MERCHANTS' ASSISTANTS. Mention was made in the Court of Arbitration yesterday of the Merchants' Assistants' dispute. Under Section 15 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration A;t, tho Conciliation Council 6tated a raso for tho opinion of the Court, the question for decision being whether the dispute could be heard by tho Conciliation Council as one dispute, or otherwise. Jlr. T. S. Weston appeared for tho employers, and Air. Cooper, secretary of the union, for the union. After hearing argument the parties, tho Court reserved its decision. MERCHANT SERVICE APPEAL. Jlr. H. H. Ostler asked Mr. Justice Sim yesterday afternoon if a fixture could lie made for hearing of the appeal against tho decision of Dr. A. M*Arthur, S.M., in {lie recent case ill which the Merchant Servico Guild was convicted and fined JJIOO in connection with tho strike of coastal ollicers. Mr. Hcrdman, for the other side, was prepared to accept any date. His Honour pointed out that the case hod not been set down, and declined to make a fixture. It is improbable that the appeal will be heard at the present sillings. TO-DAY'S BUSINESS, Batting of the Court of Arbitration jfill

bo continued this morning at 10 o cloci;, when tho following disputes are set down for hearing:—Building trades labourers dispute (application for exemption); woollen mills' dispute (for hearing); and bakers' dispute (for hearing).