ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 34, 3 November 1917, Page 12

ARBITRATION COURT

COMPENSATION CLAIM

A WAIRARAPA CASE

The Arbitration Court was engaged yesterday morning in hearing a compensation claim. On the bench weroi Mr. Justice Stringer and W. Scott (employers representative), and 0. A. M'Cullough (workers representative). Arthur Lambert Strawbridge, of Carterton labourer, lor whom Air. Coleman Phillips appeared, proceeded against Thomas Eaton of Longbusb, near Carterton, represented by Mr. 0. S. 0. Pragnell. to recover a sum of £62 75., following an acciThe statement of claim set out that at the time of the happening of the accident the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a farm labourer, and resided at hiß house at Longbush. A few days before March 6, 1917, the date of the accident, defendant instructed plaintiff to do some road metalling work, at lis. por day. Previous to that time plaintiff had been working for tlio defendant at 9s. per day and found. In the course of carrying out defendant's instructions and in lifting a heavy gravel sifter, the plaintiff so in. .iureii himself that he bad since been incapacitated from work. On March 11. defendant saw plaintiff in Carterton, and said that, lie had plaintiff insured, and gave plaintifl a note to the agent of tlio State Accident Insurance Office. Plaintifl received from the State Accident Insurance Office £20 12a. 6d. as compensation, but the State Office refused to pay anything further, as defendant had only insured plaiutifi as a farm labourer. Plaintiff was still incapacitated from work, and claimed compensation from the date of the accident to' August 31. the sum of £62 19s. 6d., less £20 12s. 63.. £12 7s. There was also a claim for £20, balance of wages due. For tho defence certain of flic allegations were admitted, but it was alleged that at the time of the alleged accident, the plaintifl was employed as a driver of a metal cart on a contract which one John Corleft was performing for the Wairarapa South County Council. That at the time of the alleged accident the plaintiff was not employed in and for the purpose of any trade or business carried on by the employer nor was the plaintiff engaged in a hazardous occupation within the moaning of the Workers Compensation Act, 1908. That if the plaintiff did suffer injury while in the employment of tne defendant, which was denied, such injury vms aggravated and prolonged by tho pUinaiTs own conduct. That if the plaintii! was entitled to compensation from the defendant, the compensation 6hould be at flic rate of £1 7s. 6d. per week, ftnd would up to August 31 amount to £34 7s. 6d. The defendant claimed to have already paid tho plalnliff on account of compensation the sum of £58 10?., which sum included the £20 12s. 6d. paid by the State Accident Office.

His Honour intimated to plaintiff's counsel that tho Court could not deal with the claim for wages (£2O). that being recover.ablo by civil proceedings. A good deal of evidence was taken, and If. was not quite clear whether plaintiff claimed compensation for injuries to his back or for" hernia. His counsel, however, said fhc claim was on both grounds.

A number of witnesses were called, and medical evidence was also called. The Court gave judgment for plaintiff for £20 12s. 6d.. medical expenses £1, costs £7 75., and expenses of witnesses.

BinPlfTE. Tllß hearing of the tailors' dispute, a claim for higher wages and shorter hours, and the employers' counter-claim, was resinned yesterday afternoon. James A. Doherty, master tailor, was called Kith respect to the employers' claim for subdivision of labour. Witness stated that. it. was essential to introduoa the system of subdivision of labour to save tie industry. In dealing with the inoreased cost of materials, he instanced the case of a military cloth. Prior to the war this particular cloth cost. 9s. per yard in the.Homo market, and the cost of landing same was 27J per cent., and now the same cloth cost 235. a yard in England, and the cost of. lauding 40 per cent. The landed cost was now 325. 2d. per yard, aa against lis. 4d. prior to the war, an increase of about 179 per cent. Other tailoring fabrics, also liningß, thread, etc., had all advanced. Tho witness also explained that the adoption of the log for military work suggested by the union would drivo the trade to the clothing manufacturers, and would .bo lost t6 the master tailors. Ha held that tho team system was particular, ly applicable to the military work. He was satisfied that, the proposed log would kill tho trade, whereas the present log would enable tho master tailors to hold the trade, while with the team system ha could say definitely that the master tailors would hold tho trade. Francis William Hobbs, master tailor, submitted a return showing tailors' earnings as compared with other trades in the 1914 award, compiled from the census of 1911. According to this return the average earnings per annum of adult workers in forty-nino skilled trades was £120 125., while general hands in the tailoring trade averaged £137 and coatmakers £127, general hands showing an increaEO of 13 per cent, and coiit-makerß an increase of 5 per cent. Only two trades earned more than tailors' general hands, and nine trades more than the coat-makers. Thirty-six skilled tradeß earned less than the lowest average of tailors. An increase from Is. to Is. ljd. on the time statement, would raise tailors' genoral hands 25 per cent, above the average of Bkilled trades, and tailors' coatmakers 17J per cent, abovo tho average. Going further the witness stated that the number of men employed in the tailoring trade decreased by 213 between the years 1906-13, equal to 19.5 per cent., although the population increased during the same period by 64.627, equal to 23.9 per cent. In 1906 there was ouo male taifor to every 251 of tho ponulation, and in 1913 there was one male tailor to every 388 of population. Witness said that the team system was equivalent to the dilution of labour which had proved so successful in the munition factories in England. This concluded the case, and the Court reserved its decision.