OUTRAGEOUS ACT!

Grey River Argus, 21 July 1934, Page 7

OUTRAGEOUS ACT!

RAILWAY DEPARTMENT Criticised Over a Dismissal (Per Press Association.) PALMERSTON NORTH, July H iSharp criticism of the action ol the Railway Department in seeking an indemnity from a former employee, Joseph ilenry Lewis, against accident compensation for a hvrist injury, on the ground that he was suffering from neuritis in the left ulnar nerve—this being the opinion that the department had obtai from its own medical office."' —was made bv Mr Justice Blair ait the hearing of a compensation claim i the Arbitration Court. It was staled in evidence by Ihe suppliant that he had been informed he would ‘‘he dealt with” if lie did not sign the indeninity. He refused, and subsequently his enii'oyment was terminated. The Ju<Lge in dismissing iwitli counsel the question of the indemnity. stated that unless there was a verv cogent reason, lhe Department's action might require, a good 'leal ot explanation. It seemed shocking that Lewis should be asked to sign an indemnity before steps had been taken to confirm the correclness or otherwise of the medical opinion obtained by the Department. 'rhe Jydge added: It .is a most extraordinary practice —a. dangerous practice. Il is an outrageous thing lor' the Dopa it men I to ask and high ly improper..- It is shockingk' After a perusal of the indemnity, the Judge said: “I like their impudence! They had better stop it!” Witnesses for the Department denied that Lewis had been discharged because he refused to sign. Lewis, who claimed £506, wits awarded £2OO