COURT OF APPEAL

Greymouth Evening Star, 18 April 1934, Page 8

COURT OF APPEAL

BLENKIRON CASE.

[FEB PBESS ASSOCIATION.]

WELLINGTON, April 17.

Before the Appeal Court, in the Blenkiron case, for the WestportStockton Coal Company, Mr Stevenson submitted that the construction hitherto placed on the Workers’ Compensation Act by the Arbitration Court was erroneous. He contended that it led to an anomalous position, resulting in an injustice to employers. Under the Act, compensation was assessed on the basis of the average weekly earnings received by the worker while at work during the 12 months preceding the accident, but no account was to be taken of any periods during which the worker had been absent from work. The Arbitration Court had construed “absent from work” as" meaning absent whether work was available or not, with the result that the worker obtained the benefit of slack times. If he worked 40 weeks and was absent from available work for two weeks, and was idle the remaining ten weeks owing to slackness of trade, then the Arbitration Court would have ascertained his average weekly earnings by dividing his total earnings for the year by 40. He submitted that a true assessment in such a case would he to divide by 50. A worker, he said, could not be absent from work if there were no work from which to be absent, because of slack times. Therefore, time during which he was idle must be taken into account, since to do likewise would result in a false assessment of the worker’s earning capacity, and he might get more on compensation than when actually working. The hearing was adjourned.

ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF

WELLINGTON. April 18. The case, Blenkiron v. Westport Stockton Coal Coy. was resumed in the Appeal Court to-day. For plaintiff, Mr. O’Regan submitted that the principles laid down by the Arbitration Court had been in operation for the past 25 years and should operate in this case. The depression was the only reason -why such principles were now disputed by the employers, hut workers were as much effected as employers thereby, because reduced wages automatically led to reduced compensation. He submitted that after the passing of 1908 Act, the English decisions were irrelevant. The method of computation was the same whether the worker worked continu-i ously or not during the relevant period I of twelve months, so that he received the benefit of the slack periods. The Court reserved its decision.