APPEAL DISMISSED

Evening Star, Issue 23834, 14 March 1941, Page 5

APPEAL DISMISSED

HOSPITAL BOARD EMPLOYEES PAYMENT OF FIREMEN The decision of the Court of Arbitration has been given in the case in which the Otago Hospital Board appealed against the interpretation given by the industrial magistrate (Mr .). A. Gilmour, S.M.) of a clause in the hospital boards’ engine drivers, firemen, and greasers’ award. The court confirmed the ruling of the magistrate, who gave an affirmative answer to the following question:— “ Is a fireman who is required after offensive matter from a hospital has been dumped into a destructor by a porter to distribute such offensive matter over the surface of the fire by means of a slice, rake, dr other firing tool, so as to expedite combustion, no other handling of the offensive matter being involved, entitled to payment of 2s 6d extra each day or part of a day he is so employed?” In its written judgment the court expressed agreement generally with the view taken by the magistrate, being quite satisfied that the firemen attending the destructor were employed for part of each day to dispose of the refuse. The material was . certainly not disposed of by automatic means.' “ It was contended by counsel for the Hospital Board,” stated the judgment, “that the refuse is disposed of by porters, who collect the receptacles from the wards, etc., and empty them on the sloping steel plate in the front of the firebox of the destructor. It may bo accepted that the porters take some part in the disposal of the refuse, but, on the other hand, the court cannot agree that the firemen who tend the fire and whose function it is to ensure ns complete combustion of the refuse as possible, take no part in the disposal of the material. While confirming the interpretation of the magistrate, the court desires it to be noted that the clause was agreed upon by the parties in conciliation, who requested that the provision should be embodied.in the award. The court has no knowledge of the cases which were under consideration by the parties when the rate of the allowance was agreed upon. The appeal is dismissed.”