ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13879, 13 October 1908, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

COMPENSATION CLAIMS. AN INJURED FIREMAN. .'-.'/ The Arbitration Court resumed its sittings yesterday morning before "Mr." Justice Sim and Messrs. S. Brown and J. A. McCullough. . ■-.',.;"•' :,;-.. 'Alfred Tiernan, formerly a fireman on board the steamer Wahaka, claimed £300 under the Workers' .Compensation for Ac? cidents Act from * the Union Steam Ship Company, in respect of ah accident sustained on". March' 11 last while' engaged firing the steamer. Mr. M..; G. McGregor appeared for claimant, and Mr. 'R. MeVeagh for respondent company. Claimant Stated- that -when engaged at his -work in . removing clinker he was struck in the abdomen by the rod. A lump formed, which was subseciuently stated by medical men to be hernia He had been unable to do much work since. He had beeppaid at the rate of £8 10s per month for the -hast year. ..,;.-. -":-", '■'■'•i ... Mr. McVeagh said the defence was, first of all, that no. accident happened— it i did > not- arise in the course ■of Tieruaii-'s employment. Moreover, the notice given of the accident had been quite insufficient, either on the ship to the chief engineer, • the captain, or to the-marinoi superintendent. Certainly claimant had complained of a lump on his groin, hut he did not say it was caused on the ship. ; _ The. case was ordered to stand over until tho evidence of the engineer who was on Watch at the time of the alleged accident was' available. ■ • AN INJURED HAND. .■■.■■" Wni. John Thorpe, a sawmiller and bush:man, ''.claimed.'' £125 ' from ' Messrs.' Hiiiiter Brothers and 1). Gpldie, on account of an accident sustained 'while, in l*espondent4 , employoiheiili on May 6. Dr. "Bamford appfctred for claimant, and Mr. McGregor for respondents. ' ' ■ ', The injury con. Lied of the los« of two joints of She first linger of the left-hand and injuries to the other fingers. The facts of the accident, which occurred' at the circular' saw,' 'were admitted, and the question w.if simply one of assessment. ..-."■.'lb. Briffaidt,' in his evidence, said I]]© .hand would ;.'hover be as good as it was, 'but. claim{i.nt could undertake work such "as driving k cart or it. bullock team. .. '."-'' Mr. Brown: I think it is language more than anything else that is required for that. "(Laughter.)..;; ;;:..- : /--' '■■■'.*:.■ :': : ..:--'.::'':....'.::.: :.':■;■."-'' An order was made for payment of £1 7s per, week, during the incapacity of claimant. If claimant returns to work for respondents at the "same wages as before the order will be suspended while he is working' for them, Credit was given for the £15 already, paid by respondents, and costs were given 'for claimant, amounting to £7 7.5, and witnesses' expenses to be fixed. -. -. "' : , '-'. ;r - .'■■■': -\"V.'■:■["■' "■'; ■ ■-■-■ ; '

. TRAVELLING TIME. Mr. Justice Sim gave judgment in the | case in which the Union Steam Ship ComI pany was charged" with a' breach of the j Auckland waterside workers' award (clause -3), by failing to pay travelling time to Workers gaged at Auckland to work cargo Kat other port*,. "The object of clause 3," said the chairman, " is to compensate workers for time occupied by them in travelling, which might otherwise have been spent in; •earning wages. To "give effect to this ob- . ject, the day. referred to' in the clause ■ought to. bo construed as meaning a working day, as defined by the award. Ha "worker spends any part of ericha. day in travelling he is entitled to bo paid for travelling time in accordance with clause 3. "m If all his travelling :is done outside !,. these working hours, then he is : not en- ' titled to any "payment.''for travelling time. 'In the present case the workers, did all 'their travelling outside working hours, arid • they, therefore, are- not entitled to any payment for travelling time." | REFUSING TO WORK. ' ; ; ; Judgment was also delivered in the case, I Inspector of Awards v. C. H. Woods and | others. Respondents were alleged to have committed a breach of clauee 11 of the i : waterside workers' award ill that, ' being ; members of a ' gang engaged and ' ordered :■ down to work tho s.s. Victoria at Auckland at seven a.m. on June 29, "they did fail and refuse to work, as prescribed by ; ho -Award." '" ' "We think," the judgment'- read, "that clause 11 ; was not intended to impose any obligation upon men to work. It was intended to enable an employer, to proceed with work When he has arranged for the proper number of men to do the work, and one or more of.t|icee fails 'to appear to commence work. ■ ... '~''■." The - duty of a 'wharf., labourer; to cointnen.ee work firf : an' employer arise!?, 1 not from the contract between the parties. If 'a. worker accepts an. engagement to assist in the work of discharging a particular ship, and then refuses or neglects to start work'at the a'p■■'pointed hour, that is a ! breach of contract, and not a broach of 'award, and the cm.-" ployer'*; remedy is an action for damages. In come cases the wrongful act may 'be breach of award, as well as a breach of contract. The. present faso is not one of these." ' - ' -' "■ » ■ ENFORCEMENT. ; " C. Clarke was charged with a breach of . the • plumbers' • award ' by .;- paying ; less''- than the award rate'. ", Defendant admitted "a breach through ignorance of a clause in the award. The rate, paid (under a contract) rwiie 9s Id, instead pf.TOs Bd. A fine of £3 was imposed. '.-■The Court adjourned to 10 a.m. .on Thursday. .: "