STOPPAGE OF WORK

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 168, 12 April 1932, Page 14

STOPPAGE OF WORK

Claim for Compensation TAW A FLAT WORKER Injured Man’s Earnings Although the amount o£ the claim was small, the principle involved in a compensation case the Arbitration Court, was asked to decide yesterday morning was stated to be of far-reach-iug importance. The action arose out of the stoppage of work on the Tawa Flat railway deviation from April 10 to June 15 of last year, and the court was asked to determine whether this constituted a break in employment for the purposes of calculating compensation under the Workers Compensation Act. His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer was on the bench, and associated with him were Mr. W. C. Prime and Mr. A. L. Monteith. Decision was reserved. The claim took the form of a petition of right against the King, and the suppliant was James Ferguson Lindsay, tunnel worker, of Glenside. As a result of a fall of rock on August 10, 1931, Lindsay, It was alleged, was totally disabled until January 31. 1932, and he claimed compensation at a higher rate than that, at which he had been paid. The amount of his claim was for a further £6/18/-, medical expenses and costs. Lindsay maintained that his average weekly earnings, in accordance with the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act, exceeded £6, but the Crown contended that at the time of the accident he was working under a contract of service dated June 15, 1931, and that, his average weekly earnings were £5/11/4. Facts Agreed Upon. The following facts were agreed upon: That the suppliant was one of a party working under a contract for over a year prior to April, 1931; by notice dated March 31, 1931, in accordance with the terms of the contract, the contract was determined on April 10; 1931; for the period August 10, 1930, to April 10, 1931, the suppliant’s average weekly earnings were £B/10/9; the suppliant commenced work under a new contract on June 15, 1931, and met with an accident on August 10, 1931; the suppliant’s average weekly earnings from June 15, 1931, to August 10, 1931, were £5/11/4. Counsel for suppliant, who said the case was regarded as a test case affecting a large number of workers, contended there had been no break in employment. He explained that the position arose over the decision of the Government to reduce rates of pay. A dispute had occurred and no work bad been done for nine weeks. If -the average weekly earnings were to be computed from the time work was resumed the compensation paid was correctly calculated, but if the suppliant was allowed to count the twelve months preceding the accident he was entitled to higher compensation. No Precedent for Caso. “So far as I can ascertain the question has not been actually decided Ln New Zealand,” said counsel for the Crown. When the original contract was determined on April 10, he said, there were discussions resulting in a complete cessation of work until June 15. He contended that there was a new contract of employment in respect of which the lower rate of compensation was payable. Counsel for suppliant said it had been established that an injured man was not prejudiced by absenting himself from work, and he submitted there was no difference In principle between one man absenting, himself from work and a party of men absenting themselves. What Sort of Gap? His Honour said the question to decide was whether there was a gap in . employment or merely a gap in the contract. The point was whether the contract of service had come to an end. and was there a fresh contract of service, not merely a fresh document in writing. Had the old con •tract come absolutely to an end and so that the relationship between master and service had come to an end? Counsel for the Crown said that formal notice was given terminating the contract. An offer was made to enter into a fresh contract. His Honour said the court had first to decide as a matter of fact whether the relationship between master, and servant continued through the intervening period. If it did continue then there was one period of employment, but if there was a break in employment and that relationship ceased to exist, then the court could only look at Hie last period of-employment. “The point is rather an Interesting one,” his Honour concluded.