ARBITRATION COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LV, Issue 230, 27 August 1935, Page 12

ARBITRATION COURT

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held in Palmerston North yesterday afternoon, when Mr J ustice Page presided, while associated with him were Messrs A. L. Monteith (employees’ assessor) and \V. Cecil Prime (employers’ assessor). The first case heard was one in which Edwin Elvery Bresnelian, joiner, of Palmerston North, by his guardian, ad litem, Edith Martha Bresnelian, claimed from John Edward Jensen, joiner, of Palmerston North, the sum of £llß 5s compensation, being 15 per cent, of the present value ot G 6 2-3 per cent, of £4 9s per week for the balance of 307 weeks, and the costs of and incidental to the action.

The defence was that plaintiff was not apprenticed to defendant and that there was no likelihood of his being so apprenticed; that the plaintiff’s maximum notional earning power when he should become 21 years of age was £3 Os per week and the defendant had been and still was ready and had offered to pay to plaintiff the sum of £B7 13s 9d in full satisfaction of plaintiff’s claim for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, 1922. Mr A. M. Ongley appeared for plaintiff and Mr L. M. Abraham for defendant.

Mr Ongley said that the only point to be determined by the Court was plaintiff’s earning power when he should become 21. Plaintiff had met with an accident on February 14 wherein he had lost the first joint of each of the middle ring finger and little finger of the left hand. Plaintiff gave evidence that he had entered the employ of defendant in February, the intention being to assist his employer in making frames for pieces of upholstery. On February 12 he had received the certificate from the Labour Department to permit of his engaging in the work. On the following day he had boon shown by defendant how to work the various machines. Next day defendant was engaged in cutting out legs for chairs, which plaintiff planed on the buzz saw. It was while so engaged that he had met with an accident. He had been off work for six weeks, but had later returned to defendant’s employ. A month later he had l>een offered an apprenticeship with another joiner and was now undertaking similar work to that which he had performed with Mr Jensen. He fully expected to be apprenticed, although the papers had not been completed. To Mr Abraham, plaintiff stated that he was receiving £1 per week when with defendant. Defendant had informed him that he would not apprentice anyone. To His Honour: It was the other joiner who approached me relative to entering his employ. Various questions relative to the number of employees in the firm by which plaintiff was now engaged were put to plaintiff. . - Defendant gave evidence that plaintiff had been engaged at £1 per week, one week’s notice to be given on either side. There had been no question of apprenticeship between defendant and the lad and the first he had heard of it was from a third party after plaintiff had left his employ. To Mr Ongley : He had no intention of apprenticing anyone, for he did not consider frame-building a trade. Just after plaintiff had been hurt, said defendant, he did employ adult labour, one man Being a joiner. In addressing the Court, Mr Abraham commented that in fixing what a lad would be earning at the age of 21 was largely presumption, but tliero were certain facts which assisted toward the determination of the figure, among them being the indication of what the lad would have been earning had he been over the age of 21. The lad had been a casual worker, and, that being so, it was reasonable to say that he would have been working at the minimum rate for casual lalwur. His Honour asked if the lad could have become a journeyman at the age of 21. Mr Abraham replying that to his mind plaintiff could not then have become a journeyman, because he would not have gone through his apprenticeship. The sum already paid into Court was the utmost to which he was entitled, and was a generous sum at that. Notional earnings were based on a journeyman’s wages in the trade in which the lad was engaged, Mr Ongley said. Even though a lad had not actually gone through an apprenticeship he would at the close of the apprenticeship period be entitled to full journeyman’s wages. Delivering judgment, after a short retirement, His Honour said they could not adopt the view that the boy could not earn a journeyman’s wages without being apprenticed. Their view was that at 21 the boy would have become a skilled worker in the trade and would have then been classed as a journeyman, and, as 6uch, be entitled to a journeyman’s wages. The award under which the boy would have been employed was the furniture workers’ award, and the journeyman’s wages under that were Is lid an hour, so that the weekly wage was £4 4s 4d. Judgment would bo given for plaintiff, counsel to calculate what the full amount would be on the changed basis. At Mr Ongley’s request, an order was made that £SO be paid, the rest of the sum to be held in trust for the bov by the Public Trustee. Costs and solicitor’s fee of £7 7s were allowed.

accident at sawmill. Tho second action was that in which James Hector Hosie, formerly of Rangiwahia and now of Christchurch, labourer, proceeded against Robert Waugh of Rangiwahia, sawmiller. Mr T F Helling appeared for plaintiff and Mr N. M. Izard (Wanganui) for defendant. .. , The statement of claim set out that on and before April 20, 1934, plaintiff had worked for defendant for id a week and a free house at a null at Rangiwahia. On April 20 plaintiff had his right hand and wrist severely damaged by a circular saw. As a result of the accident he had been totally incapacitated for 29 weeks and would

he permanently partially incapacitated, bis right hand being of little use for ordinary manual work. The injury had arisen out of plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff therefore claimed £374 ss, made up as follows: —29 weeks at £2 5s a week, £65 ss; 284 weeks at £1 11s 8d (computed at 5 per cent.), £393 6s 8d ; medical fee, £1; total, £459 11s 8d; less amount already paid (£BS 6s 8d), £374 ss. The .statement of defence was set out that plaintiff’s wages were £3 a week only. Plaintiff had been allowed to occupy an old two-roomed mill wharo on the site. It was alleged that the permanent incapacity was not greater than 50 per cent, of the incapacity which would be caused by tho total loss of the hand. Defendant admitted that plaintiff was entitled to the sum of £l4B 19s 4d, made up as follows: 29 weeks’ total incapacity at £2 Is 8d per week, £6O 8s 4d; 284 weeks at 14s 7d (computed at 5 per cent.), £lßl 2s 8d ; medical fee, £1; less amount paid, £93 11s 8d; total, £l4B 19s 4d. Mr Belling said there were two points requiring attention- —whether the cottage in which plaintiff lived at tho time of the accident was worth anything in rent and to what extent the injury would affect his ability to work. In his evidence plaintiff said the cottage he had lived in at the mill with his wife had been of two rooms, ■with a stove. Ho was not now able to do any of the work he had done before the accident. Ho was willing to undertake light work, but could not obtain any. Mr Izard submitted that the wharo was worth not more than 2s 6d a week, and that tho claim was too high. Evidence was given by defendant that the wliare was built of “seconds” timber and would cost about £ls. A rent of 2s 6d a week was quite ample. After a short retirement the Court gave its verdict. The rent of the wliare was fixed at 5s a week as reasonable. Plaintiff’s earning power in his present condition was estimated at £1 15s n i week, which left a difference between j that and his former wages and house allowance of £1 10s. The statutory amount of that would he allowed, £1 10s to commence from the period when plaintiff’s total incapacity was judged to have ceased, to the expiration of the statutory period, payments already made to lie # taken into acount. Expenses and solicitor’s fee (£8 8s) were allowed. Tho total amount to be paid to plaintiff was computed at £229 9s sd.