WHOSE LIABILITY?

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 237, 21 June 1926, Page 8

WHOSE LIABILITY?

LEAKY GUM-BOOTS WORKERS SEEK REDRESS Does the leaking of cement through a gum boot so as to cause inflammation of the foot and ultimately blood poisoning constitute an accident within' the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act ? Light on this point was sought by a deputation from the New ’ Zealand Workers’ Union which waited on the Minister of Labour (Pion. G. J. Anderson) on Saturday. Mr. J. B. Williams brought under the notice of the Minister a case where the. Workers’ Compensation Act seemed to ‘ be at fault. In the works carried on. by a large firm of contractors at Arapuni, he said, the men were compelled to' use gum boots that had previously , been used by other men. In some cases the boots were punctured and. the water and cement came through, causing inflammation of the feet. Three men were at present in hospital with blood poisoning incurred through this cause. The employers had refused to pay compensation in that case, and the New Zealand Workers’ Union had been informed that they had no case under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The average employer would have paid compensation under the circumstances, said Mr. Williams, but the firm in question had definitely refused to do so. The Minister said that he did not see that inflammation of the foot brought on gradually by a leaky gum boot could be classed as. an accident. However, he would look into the question, as he was not satisfied that he had heard both sides of the case. Mr. Williams asked that the matter be attended to as one of urgency. There would be trouble if nothing were done. The men would not carry on under the present conditions. Mr. H. I. Walters said he was in charge of the Public Works Department stores near Arapuni. He knew from experience that almost every day the same . gum boots were sent out to different men. No attempt had been made to fumigate them. The Minister asked whether there had been instances before of men contracting blood poisoning through defective boots. It seemed to him that this was an isolated instance, otherwise it was strange that the matter had never been brought to his notice previously. Mr. Williams said there had been other cases, but this was a particularly glaring instance. The Minister promised that his Department would look into the matter immediately and communicate with the union as soon as the exact position had been ascertained.