ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13742, 6 May 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

The Arbitration Court, consisting ox Mr. Justice Sim and Messrs. S. Brown and J. A. McCtuTouglr, resumed its sittings yesterday.

The Waihi (hand Junction Company, Ltd., applied under the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act for. arbitration in respect of one of their employees, T. Nickells

On May 20 respondent sustained an accident while engaged at the company's works, whereby lie was incapacitated to a certain extent From the date of the accident to October 14, 1907, the company had paid respondent at the rate of £1 2s per week, or half his average weekly earnings while in their employ, bill on that date, Dv Gordon haying given a certificate thai respondent was fit- for light work, the payments were, stopped. Respondent contended that he was entitled to a greater sum than £1 2s per week, and that the payments should continue, as he had not yet recovered. 'Mr. McVeagh said this was a case where the usual position of the parties was reversed, the employer being Ihe applicant for arbitration. Nickells entered into the employment of the .company as a repairer on November 28, 1906. On' May 20, 1907, a battery stamp fell on his hand and injured it to such an extent that medical treatment was required. The wound became gangrenous, and it was found necessary to amputate, the little finger of his left-hand. As to respondent's earnings. ,he was paid £54 12s 9d for 24 weeks and six days by the company, or an average weekly wage of £2 3s ll.ld. During that * period he believed Nickells had been absent for three weeks on holiday, and it would be a question for the Court to decide as to how this period was to be treated. Prim- to November, 1906, respondent had been engaged at a, mine in West Australia, where, during 17 weeks, he earned £60 13s—£3 10s a week. The. average earnings over the whole period were £2 15s Id per week, or £1 7s 6Ad half pay. One point the Court would have to decide was whether in estimating the amount of the average weekly earnings of the worker consideration must be given to his earnings in Australia. His Honor : There was a case where we so treated a man's earnings. Mr. McVeagh said the point was an important one from the employer's point of view. There might be a material reduction of the average in some cases, or where the average paid was higher, as in this case, it would mean an increase. When the accident occurred the company called on Nickells to submit himself for medical examination to Or. Gordon, who certified on October 14 that respondent, was capable of doing light work. He was later, on expressing his dissatisfaction at this view, examined by Dr. Neil, who testified that he was fit for light work, and a month later that he was in a condition to resume his former occupation. Now, when should the half pay cease? Mr. Reed accepted the figures submitted, but said that for the, year previous to the accident respondent earned £147 IBs, or £2 16s lOd per week. At his present occupation Nickells was being paid 7s 6d per day by the company, but. while he was doing skilled work, and was on a constant job formerly, he was now carrying tar and holding a water-hose, with time off for wet days. He contended further that respondent, had been practically coerced into submitting himself to Dr. Neil's examination.

Evidence was given by several doctors as to the nature-of the injury, opinions cling. His Honor : What do you claim compensation, Mr. Reed ? Mr. Reed : We claim £1 8s 5d per week —half of £2 16s lOd—to December 9, and also the difference between the rate of 7s 6d per: day respondent is now.* receiving and the average daily earnings, or lis lOd per week. Excluding the Australian basis it would be 3s less per week. Judgment was reserved. A CLAIM SETTLED. A settlement, was effected out of Court in the claim for £150 compensation bv Mudford (Mr. Limdon) against Donachy and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Tunks), for the loss of claimant's third and fourth fingers during the course of his employment. The case was accordingly struck out. .

In the engineers' case, which was heard on Monday, Messrs. Ma-ssey Bros! and A. and T. Burt were the only firms who were cited. Messrs. Sea-gar Bros, were not concerned in the case, as was made to appear, owing to an error in the information supplied to our reporter. Mr. C. Se'agar was called as a witness only.