ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19002, 25 July 1925, Page 10

ARBITRATION COURT

■ rvDUNEDIN SITTINGS The Dunedin sittings of the Arbitration Court—His Honor Mr Justice Frazer (president), Messrs Hiram Hunter and \V. Scott (assessors)—were continued this morning. INTERPRETATION SOUGHT. An interpretation was Bought by the Shop Assistants’ Union (Mr W. W. Batchelor). The award stated: “Clause 1 (a): For the purpose of this award every person shall bo doomed to bo a shop assistant who is engaged in any capacity in connection with the reception, display, sale, or delivery of goods or orders in or for the retail establishments of those employers who are bound by this award, but this shall not include persons engaged in office work. Clause 2 (h); Classification of Workers —A porter is a worker employed by an employer party to the award whose duties are substantially cleaning, delivering parcels by hand, running messages, and other duties of a general nature usually performed by porters.” Mr Batchelor said that, taking the interpretation clause, the court must recognise that, no matter what position a hoy was in. he was a person, and that a- parcel boy was engaged in the delivery of goods or orders; therefore for the purpose of this award he was entitled to be termed a shop assistant. Then, if parcel boys did not come under the main wages clause, they must come under clause 2 (h) and be paid accordingly, and were entitled to £3 Iss per week, irrespective of age. The union would be quite justified in bringing employers before the court for a breach of the award if that sum were not paid. Mr Cookson said it was absurd to say that those boys were entitled to £3 15s a week. 1 His Honor said that the court would consider the matter. COMPENSATION CASE.

Samuel William Jarvis (Mr P. S. Anderson) proceeded against the Otago Harbor Board (Mr A. N. Haggitt) for compensation for the loss of an eye. Mr Anderson said that on October 17, 1924, the plaintiff was engaged on a pile-driver at the fishermen’s stops, Port Chalmers. Plaintiff and a fellowworkman were engaged on the second staging. The wind was bloving in their direction, and plaintiff w*as burnt by a spark from the funnel of the piledriver. The burn was in the inner angle of the left eye. Complications ensued, and the eye had to be removed. Dr A, S'. Moody said that for two periods of ten months each he was in charge of the X-rav and radium department at the Dunedin Hospital. He first saw the plaintiff on March 4, 1925. Ho was then in charge of the _ X-ray and radium department. Plaintiff was sent for an opinion from Dr Ross regarding treatment for which he diagnosed as a rodent ulcer of the inner angle of the left eye. The fact that he was sent to him suggested that Dr Ross thought that it was a malignant case. If radium had been applied first in Jarvis’s case, the wound might have broken down if an operation had later been performed. He advised Jarvis that lie should see Dr Pickerill and take his advice on the question of_ a surgical operation. He had been informed that the patient had been burnt by a spark, and that after three or four months the nicer appeared on the site of the burn. Assuming that there was nothing the matter -with Jarvis before the accident, any irritation might cause a subsequent malignant degeneration, especially in the inner angle of the eye. If plaintiff had not been burned witness did not think that ho would have had the ulcer. To Mr Haggitt; He knew of cases of rodent ulcers being caused by irritation set up by X-rays and radium. To His Honor; Anything that damaged the tissues might set up a rodent ulcer in the eye. The hearing was adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday.