ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13487, 14 May 1907, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

' ' wgll Arbitration Court, consisting of Mr.' v justice Sim and Messrs. R. Slater and S. Brown, resumed its sittings at ten o'clock yesterday. ; A PECULIAR CASE. A COMPANY'S LIABILITY. The Court gave judgment in the ease of Arthur John Salt v. the Kauri | " Timber Company, Limited, a claim for compensation for injury received while j working in the respondent's sawmill at Waimamaku, Hokianga, on July 27, 1906. It was Salt's duty to receive timber as it came down from a shoot, and place it on trucks. At a distance of from 15ft to 20ft away was a main shaft, and on the day '"> in question the claimant was ordered to remove a niece of belting which 'had got twisted round the shaft while it was in motion. Salt endeavoured to carry out the order, and was carried over the shaft, and sustained injuries which resulted in the loss of his right arm above tho elbow. There was a conflict of evidence as to j how the piece of belting got on tho shaft, but the Court accepted the statement ot "Whitefield, a follow worker, when he said he saw Salt place the piece of belting on : i the shaft, watch it .'or a while, and then go away again. Mr. McVeagh, who ap--peared for the respondent, contended that tho claim must fail because—(l) the accident by which claimant was injured did not arise out of and in the course of his employment; and (2) the injury .to the claimant was attributable to his own serious '' and wilful misconduct. Dealing with the latter contention, the Court pointed out that Salt was only 18 years of age when the accident happened, and was not shown 'll(>to have had any experience in connection . . ' with machinery, and, in placing the belting on the shaft for his own amusement they thought that he was not aware that he was misconducting himself in any way. According to Whitefield's account, the claimant did not regard his act as anything more than a harmless amusement. And harmless it might have been, so far as the claimant was . concerned,, had ; it not been' for the interference of Bridge, his senior, who ordered him to return and take the belting off. The claimant was returning to his work, and if Bridge had not given the order the bolting -might have remained on tho shaft without injury to anyone until the mrehinery was stopped. The injury to the claimant was caused, not by his placing (((the belting on the shaft, but in- attempting to remove it, under the order of his Su- (. perior, while the shaft was in motion. . . In view of the order given, - the Court held that claimant was justified in thinking that it was proper for him to attempt to remove the bolting from the shaft, and in their judgment, therefore, tho respondent had failed to establish that there, was seri- ' ous and wilful misconduct on fho part of the claimant. With regard, to Mr. McVeagh's other contention, the Court considered it clear that if the claimant's attempt to remove the belting from the shaft had been made without any order from Bridge, he would have been acting outside . the scope of his employment, and would not have been entitled to compensation. Bridge was not called as a witness, and they did not know what was in his mind VI when he i gave the order, but they wore, ' justified in assuming that, 'in giving this order, he was acting in the interests of his employer, and. for .the .purpose of prevent-, ing the risk of damage ; to person or property. Did the fact that claimant was himself the cause of the mischief .-; which was ■to be remedied make any difference? They thought that it; should ■ not," unless the ■ claimant's act in causing that mischief amounted to serious and wilful misconduct, and they had held that it did not amount to that.* They held that the accident was ' caused ,by claimant's obedience.to an. order given by a fellow worker in the interests of his employer, in what must bo regarded as an emergency, and, (therefore,; arose out of his employment.'; ''(,;.'(..,('.( ■ ! 7 The Court awarded tho claimant £1 per week as from tho date of the accidenlt, . to ibe paid to him " by the respondent during his partial incapacity for . work, until such ; payment - is redeemed or ■ ended in • accordance with the provisions of j • the Act. The claimant was also I allowed it £10 10s costs, with disbursements and wit- . ;",nesses'- expenses to be fixed by the clerk -> ' (if awardsr ,s " % '' i "" 1 " : " : ' - - v " r --.-■■-"-■■' , . ;' , '"-'" jr '-^—-T> ' -■"" J-.-- -". ''"'-"' ~' .. ''.- ~--'-;'-; ( ''-: : '.-:,/.■■*:---'-■■ WATERSIDE WORKERS. The hearing of the waterside s workers' dispute was then proceeded with. Mr. R. F. Way appeared for the union, and Messrs. . W. Scott and W. G. Smith (secretary of the; Shipmasters' Association) <'for 'the^" Union Steam Ship Company, the Northern Steam- ' ship Company, Nearing and Co.; Huddart, Parker, and ;Co.;: Colonial Sugar Company, (' and Mr. J. Leonard. Mr. Miller, appearing on behalf of Morpeth Brothers and ; W. E. Anderson, asked for exemption on behalf of these firms, on the ground that they were carters, and '-' ' were already parties ' under the carters' award. His Honor said Morpeth Brothers and - W. E. Anderson's claims for exemption could be heard when the Court became acquainted with the facts of the dispute. Messrs. Carr and Haslam also claimed ■„; exemption for their employees, who were paid by the week. The. union consenting, the application was granted. ' The union demands: — : 1. That for all classes of labour the ordinary ,; ; working hours shall be from eight a.m. ; till uve. p.m., with an hour lor luncheon between noon and one p.m. ; . 2- That the minimum rate of wages shall -;-_.. t>o as follows:— Coal workers: Shovelling, Is ! 6d, per hour; carrying, trimming bunkers, and Dllankraen, ; 2s; overtime shovelling, 2s 3d; carrying, trimming bunkers, and plankmen, is. Cargo workers: Ordinary time, - Is 3d; overtime, 2s. Freezers: Oidinary time, 2s; overtime, 3s; on the -wharf. Is 6U; overtime, ' Z9. Guano workers: In bulk, Is 6d; overtime, is 3d. All men told off to do duty as night watchmen shall receive ?5s per night. All other classes of workers not specified in ■• . clause 2, such as tallymen, stackers, loaders in | the sheds and on the ; wharves, including Sugar Company's raw store, ■■■ deck painters, and clippers, shall be paid at the same rate as cargo workers, both in respect of ordinary • time and overtime. The union, among a number of other things, asks that all work in ■> connection with coal vessels and all work necessitating the use of a shovel, shall be paid for at the same rate as the coal workers are (for shovelling; that no more, than five . hours shall be worked without a spell for meals;:' that men who are engaged to go to the Sugar Works, dock, or to any vessel in the stream, or elsewhere, shall be paid from the' time they are taken on at the wharf, ; Auckland, until they are discharged at the place where they were first engaged; that slings of cargo receivable at the ship's gangway, both for discharging and loading, shall not exceed 12cwt; that a truck load for two men shall not exceed 12cwt, and oowt for one man; that a specified number of men shall be engaged on certain work, and that double time shall be paid on Sundays, and on eight holidays in the '; ' . year. Preference to unionists is also asked for. A long list of counter-proposals by the employers was handed in. These provide:— „i Th .* t the hours on Saturday shall be from ~' . «gnt a.m. till four p.m., while in regard to wages, the employers make the following ' uncrß:«—Stevedore and 'general cargo work (exclusive of work done for the Harbour goard): Ordinary time, Is 3d; overtime, 2s. narbour Board work: Ordinary time. Is 2d; overtime. Is 103. These rates do not include Ue !,.* 01 Vwork done in freezing chambers, fjandhng ecal: Ordinary time, Is 4d; over- - v lnie - 2 i ß d; trimming in ships' hunkers on "'wcolonial and coastal steamers: Ordinary • • , "me, 1b 6d; overtime, as 6d. Rates for carrying coal: Ordinary time, 2s; overtime, 3s. wernauling work on ships: Ordinary time, " '3d; overtime, 2s. Chipping, cleaning, fp'jhbing, and painting interiors of vessels: ' "binary time, la; overtime, la 9d. Similar ™ork on ballast-tanks, peaks, bilges, chaini , t ockers, and under the boilers: Ordinary "tie, la 3d; overtime, 2s. Carrying and stowing work in freezing chambers aboard ship: • ordinary time, la 6d; overtime, 2s 6d. In cool jnanibers: Ordinary time. Is 3d; overtime, 2s. ~ fading hands to receive 3d per hour extra; . ,; «e conditions for leading hands to remain as i' - ~ « present. Men engaged in Auckland to work cargo at other ports to be paid from the time i' , leaving Auckland till their return at the !•'< '•' fate of 10a per day (Sundays excluded); after r •< noon to be paid for half-a-day. All men who «e engaged to work anywhere within the - 1 nmits of the Auckland Harbour to be paid worn the time of having the wharves and ml »p.j°'-the time of ceasing work at the rates jweu tor the class of labour thev are engaged hi', v en ordered down for work and attendto 5. *ween the hours of five p.m. and nine Wo to , r eceive not less than one hour's pay. fv* : *en ' ordered down for work and attending " ween tin hours of n'ne p.m and seven foit,'," i™" between the hours of four p.m. on tv ' 2°^ and seven a.m on Monday, and for §Vin,, «n holidays to receive not less than two :? aH° r5a V-' Men ordered down for work and *"«ncluig between the hours of seven . a-m. i'L'W a.m. to receive nAt less than one SiW- Work done on. Sundays. Christ- " So- Day, and Good Fridry, shall be- paid at f im/i * f double time, while ordinary overp;3> 0 , e _, is ?fiered for eight holidays. Intervals emrii ' ' *"■* laid down ' ' and in regard "to *«'Pioywent th« , employers propose that ; in m^MwA'V;/'^'■■■: -'■'-■'.'■;'- ■;;>;-;.;:-;„";'- - :^:;---:;;>.v,':;^-;. : ;-,v - akms% : «S!j!K:;si"S>:';J» : ;:-'i ■;-/:,--:.. ;,S: ". '•::; -'-.-•'-..,-. ■' --:-■ :;■'- -.;;,-;-:*': :■'::■:■■; -,'-■---: ■' Mmß'&:ii!m'.:»y. ; -::?'!<;;:::/: ■ "-:.;..;■..,' -:■:,■- • • v ■'■■ :■■>; <:■ ■;.•>:■:..■: ■.-;

theevent; of "Hie partita being unable to agree on a place or places for engagement, the matter be '- refer redu to the* Auckland ? Harbour Board's traffic manager, , whose i, decision shall be final. The employers agree to regulation of weight of slings and coal baskets. They ask that the award shall apply, only to casual labour employed from* day to day, lor from hour to: hour, and shall not apply., to .weekly or permanent employees or to men employed on: maintenance works, where '■' such men' are employed for a longer period than one week. Mr. Way, in addressing the Court, stated that the- union wished Saturday work to conclude '■ at one p.m., instead of five p.m., as at present. The wages claimed ? for coal workers, cargo workers, freezers, and guano workers were the same as had been paid for the last 20 years.' J The only exception was a request for an increase in the overtime . rate for coal workers, so as to bring them into conformity ; with other classes of wharf workers.' They also asked j that the rate of wages for nightwatchmen should bo 15s per night. At ; the present time they received something '■■ like .1 10s, Vand (it was | felt that they J should be put on !a ( level I (with other employees, as they were exposed to all kinds of weather. They also asked that a man -should not have to work for more than five hours without a meal. Sometimes it happened that the men had to work from eight in the ; morning until two or three in the afternoon without a break for meals. In conclusion, Mr. Way said he had never had i more demands to put for.ward on behalf of a union. • Evidence was then called in support of the union's demands. Among the witnesses was David. McLaren, secretary of "the Wellington Wharf Labourers' Union, who stated that, while the Wellington wages were, the same as those of ■ Auckland, the actual earnings . were higher. >: The amount ;of i coal handled in Wellington was ' three times greater than here. ■ Be thought-that there was grave danger in applying the terms .which existed at one port to the conditions existing ,at another. There were :no i two ports in tho colony at which the conditions were the same. "• The further hearing of the dispute was adjourned until this morning. -„• SLAUGHTERMEN AND MANURE- .. WORKERS. -■■.-*. Mr.W. Scott, the employers' representative, speaking with regard to the slaughtermen's dispute, stated that a conference ■ was held on Saturday, when a settlement was arrived at as -regards the freezing companies. A further conference would be held . that evening, when it was likely that an agreement in regard to supplying the local shops would also be arrived at. ;■:-> ;■;("■• » Appearing on behalf of the men in the Westfield workers' dispute,, Mr. Arthur Rosser stated that a final settlement wit)- the employers was arrived at on Saturday.'■ The -agreement was ■ now ready for signature, and would be presented''.'to the Court on Tuesday. AN ORDER. CANCELLED. The Court, gave its decision on the application of Brown Brothers, and Geddes, \ to review and terminate an award by * which they .': were ordered to. pay; 2s per week to Eos© Phinix, ' a former employee,; during her partial incapacity, caused by an accident while in the applicants' employ. % The Court considered that Miss Phinix would not at any time hereafter be unable, owing to the injury which she had received, to earn: more than the wages she was earning at the date of the accident. They, therefore, made an order terminating the weekly payment as from that date.