SEQUEL TO A WRECK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20993, 2 October 1931, Page 10

SEQUEL TO A WRECK.

DEATH OF FIRST tfIATE. WIDOWS CLAIM FAILS. , HUSBAND EXCLUDED FROM ACT. [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON. Thursday. Judgment for the lTolm Shipping Company, Limited, was given by the Arbitration Court to-day on the claim for £IOOO compensation and £25 for funeral expenses brought against tho company by Matilda May Lawton, widow of Frank Lawton. mate of the Progress, who was drowned when the vessel was wrecked at Island Bay on May 1. Tho question for determination by the Court was whether deceased was a worker within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Act. Tho finding of the Court was that the action came with section 2 of the Act, which excludes from the operation of the Act any person employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whoso remuneration exceeded £4OO per annum. The Court said that deceased had been first mate of the Progress since January 19, 1931, tho position being a permanent one, and his pay and allowances exceeded £4OO a year. There was no doubt that his real and substantial duties were to mwigate the vessel and superintend her working subject to the direction of the master. The manual labour he performed might be set out under three headings: (a) Taking the wheel during night watches while the sails were being set or furled and while the watch was being relieved; (b) assisting to transfer coal from the hold to tho bunkers; and (c) assisting in loading and discharging cargo at Port Waikato. The amount of that work was negligible, continued the judgment. His real and substantial employment was therefore otherwise than by way of manual labour, even though he was on occasions required to perform, and did perform, work that could bo properly described as manual labour. The subsidiary question was as to the amount of the deceased's remuneration stated iD the Court. "Remuneration" was a wider term than "salary," and included any reward in money or money's worth for services rendered to an employer. The defendant company had proved that the total remuneration of deceased for the year, including board and accommodation, overtime and other matters, would have exceeded £4OO. Even if allowance were made for the recent general reduction of 10 per cent, in rates of remuneration, his total remuneration would still have exceeded £4OO.