INJURY TO WORKER.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 19 December 1924, Page 5

INJURY TO WORKER.

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. ' QUESTION OF. TRAVELLING TIME, f THE APPLICATION FAILS; ";. (by TELEGRAPH —-PRESS ASSOCIATION.) AUCKLAND, Dec. 18. A judgment of- considerable importance to workers governed by awards which provide for travelling time allowance ha 6 been delivered by the Arbitration Court. The' case was one heard in Wellington on November 27,. when Arthur Brown claimed from the Union Steamship Company compensation in respect of an injury received by him on September 16., The judgment of the court as delivered by Mr Justice Frazer states that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant company to work on one of the company’s steamers at Miramar wharf. On the day .mentioned work ceased at 3 p.m., and the waterside workers went home. While walking along a public road between the Evans Bay power-house and Kilbirnie . post office the plaintiff trod oii a loose stone and jarred his knee, and had since been unable to work by reason of the effects of the injury. The accident occurred within 10 minutes from the time plaintiff left his work. , It was contended, on his behalf that the accident arose out of and; in the course of his employment. Plaintiff and defendant company .were; on the date of the accident, bound by the Dominion waterside workers’ award of November 17, 1922, clause 12 (b) of which is as follows: “For travelling time between the Wellington wharf and Petone or Miramar three-quarters of an hour shall be allowed to cover the journey each way, but if employers provide free conveyance by launch, steamer or motor-car, no payment shall be made for travelling time, unless the time ot-ciipied exceeds 20 'each/ way, when excess time shall be paidfor.” The defendant company exercised its option of paying three-qu aiders of- 1 an hour travelling time between. Miramar and Wellington, instead of providconveyance to bring the men back to the Wellington wharf. It was claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, compensation. • ;

In Edwards v. Wingham Agricultural Implements Company, in which the facts were that the-deceased worker met with an accident while riding home after his day’s work on a bicycle provided by his employers, which he was entitled to use, the Master of the Rolls said: “When, does the employment of a man begin? Except in such. a case as that of a domestic servant, where employment is continuous, the employment must begin at' some v time ' and nlace and end at some time and place. Here employment ended at 6 o’clock. The man was-under no obligation to his employer to move away from that place after 6 o’clock and to ride home on a bicycle. I cannot see what importance should be attached to the fact; that he was on that bicycle at the time the accident happened. “If the accident had happened to another during his work I assume that workman could have recovered, that is, I assume without deciding that in such a case the accident would, have arisen, not only in the course of, but also out of the employment. In my opinion the applicant in this case fails because the accident did not arise in the course of his employment. The appeal fails, and must be dismissed.” This, so far as the application of principle was concerned, exactly fitted the present case. Judgment would he for*the defendant company, and leave was reserved to anolv for costs. .