ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5733, 31 October 1905, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

The Arbitration Court sat yesterday, His Honour .Mr Justice Chapman prehid- 1 in", and having with him on the Bench ■ Messrs Brown and Slater. ivr E K MKT tXG COM V RXS ATJ OX CLAIM JUDGMENT, The President delivered judgment of the Court in the ease Public I rustec v. C. A, Macdonald and Co. Tliis was a t claim nmDr Uio Workers' Compensation j for Accident Ad, 1000.‘ The wpocial easel staled for tho opinion of the Court was . whether dependents domiciled out of the I colony of New Zealand are entitled to compensation in respect of the death of Arthur Karlonger, a worker on whoeo earnings they were dependent. This is tho first ease in which it lias become nue-.saiv fo consider the question in tho colonv, and so far as flje Court is aware i» has not been «dlled with reference fo the Workmen's Compensation Act, JM>7, in Kurland. 'The (,‘ourl had eomo to the conclusion that. lookinu at the very various conditions prevailing, there were reasons from which it might be properly inferred that the legislature did not intend to restrict the benefit either to British subjects or to persons domiciled or resident within the colony. It was quite clear that, if any workman, no mailer what his allegiance or domicile might be, fuili'eml personal injury by accident arising out of, and in the course of, his employment in New Zealand, he wan personally entitled to compensation. Tho present question was only as to therights of his dependents. Tho domicile of some of those necessarily followed that of (ho principal, but as In tho others, there was no fciich dependence. Did the rigid depend on domicile, allegiance. or residence? Some aspects of (lie question might be considered as they might bo expected to arise. Thus: A man left his home and came here from Australia lo work under three years' engagement with tho full intention of returning there. His wife followed, visiting New Zealand during part; of each year. Was it to form the subject of inquiry whether ho was domiciled in New Zealand. when killed by accident, while his wife was actually residing wilh him? Was it to make a difference to her that she happened to be in Australia, or at sea. when he was killed, or was it important to ascertain whether she was at sea on a New Zealand ship, or an Australian ship? Was it to be determined that his wife was a dependent because she happened to bo here, while his children, who wore absent, were debarred from claiming or were the children to be admitted while the wife was debarred? Snpposug the man to be a temporary resident, whose wife and children were abroad, was his mother to bo admitted while they were excluded b'eauso she happened to be domiciled ■ here ? All these questions appeared to tbo Court to answer themselves, and to carry with them a negation of the proposition that tho question depended on (he domicile or place of residence, cither of the deceased or the dependents. The case of alienage was answered by similar considerations. If in connection with the acts of a colonial legislature granting a benefit to a class, it was once found that persons domiciled beyond the colony were not excluded from the benefit, there was seldom a separate reason for concluding that foreigners were excluded, a conclusion which would result in its being safer to employ them than to employ British subjects. If aliens were excluded, then in the very common case where a foreigner had married a New* Zealand born woman, and thereby changed her nationality, she would be excluded. Our Parliament did not legislate for British subjects, but for those subjects who were within its jurisdiction, and those persons to whom it presumably intended its legislation to apply. If once it was ascertained that this intention extended to persons beyond its own borders, there was no sound reason for limiting it to British subjects. On the whole the Court was satisfied that the legislature intended to treat alike all workers in New Zealand, and to extend the benefits of the act to tho dependents coming within the description of the "members pf workers' family" in the first schedule, irrespective of the worker's allegiance or domicile, and irrespective of their allegiance. domicile, or residence. It was, of course, possible that an English Court might sooner or later take a different view of the scope 6f the Imperial Act. The Court thought, however, that in copying this act with immaterial alterations, our legislature must be considered to have had in mind the circumstances ; prevailing in New Zealand, and to have intended to apply it to the people of a country so circumstanced, ana the Court answered the special case accordingly. They allowed the Public Trustee =£7 7s costs, and disbursements, as costs of arguing the case. Mr Hindmarsh was for the Public Trustee, Mr Weston for the widow, and Mr Treadwell for respondents. THE PREFERENCE CLAUSE. Judgment was also- given in the matter of the charge agam-st ■ the Wellington Meat Export Company of having employed a non-unionist named James Morris when there were unionists out of employment, who wore willing and ablo to undertake tho work. The Court, by a majority, was satisfied that there was neither continuous service of tho non-unionist nor an agreement to treat tho service as continuous. A breach was recorded, no penalty being inflicted. Costs, £2 2s and expenses. Mr Brown dissented. D'Arcy Ford was charged with breaches of the tailors award in the direction of employing three non - unionists (two tailoresses and a presser). Mr Findlay appeared for the inspector of awards, ami Mr Levvcy for the respondent. The committal of the breaches was admitted, but, Mr Levvcy submitted, was duo to respondent's manager's action and not to his client's. As soon as the matter was brought to his knowledge Mr Ford took it in hand, and the employees named ioined tho union. The President said it was an ordinary case of a man relying upon an agent, and the agent committing a breach of award. The Court had always ruled that the employer was fully responsible in such cases. A penalty of £2 and £2 2s costs was imposed in respect of each of the present charges. A LAPSE OF MEMORY. Arthur L. Williams, baker and storekeeper, of Rona Bay, for whom Mr Luckie appeared, was charged with a breach of the bakers* award, namely, the employment of a carter named Charles Blake in nis bakehouse. Mr Findlay, who appeared for the inspector, said that respondent was in the present. instance cited in his proper name, but in the award he appeared incorrectly ns "W." Williams. Ho had also been originally wrongly addressed in that name. Mr Luckie -said his client had never received notification of the filing of the dispute which resulted in the award made in March, 1901. The President said the mere proof of delivery to tho post of a letter wrongly addressed did not prove it had reached its destination. There might bo evidence that this communication was delivered. Mr Luckie said his client had no recollection of having received it. 'Hie President said the point could be determined by the signature on the receipt. Mr Findlay said he could prove the notice was written and not returned through the dead-letter office. The President 4 said that would not prove it was delivered. Andrew Collins, secretary of the Wellington Operative Bakers' Union, stated in evidence that he wrote a letter addressed to "W." Williams, at Rona Bay, in March last year, giving notification of the dispute being filed. There was no other Williams at tho Bay, and no other baker. Charles Edward Aldridge deposed to respondent having informed him that Plaice drove a cart and also assisted him in making dough every morning. Mr Luckie, for the defence, said that Blake was employed not ns & carter, but as general assistant. Assuming his client to bo bound by the award it would be very hard upon him. He must, on one orTwo days, have assistance in the bakehouse and' the driving job only extended over about twenty hours a week. In the winter ho had very little baking to do.

Tho President said these special circumstances should have been representI od to the Court when the award was be- | Jng formed. . . , Mr Luckie contended respondent had ! not received notification of tne award. The President: If so. of course there the matter ends, because this is peculiarly a case in which notification was was called and denied liavin" received Hie registered letter containin'" notification of his citation as i a parte to the dispute. ! The r'-asc. was adjourned until the afternoon in order that Hie Post Office rcI cords might he investigated with regard [ to the receipt for Uo missing registered letter. ~ , T tin resuming Mr Findlay called James Richards, employed in the registered let ter department of tho Post Office. Ho stated that in February, 1903, he delivered a registered letter to respondent. tt was from the Clerk of Awards, and was wrongly addressed, but witness knew res pon lie til. Receipt tor letter produced was signed by respondent. Mr Heckle said his client did not remember receiving tho letter or its contents. „ The President said it was a case ol resnomtent failing to attend to his mieriwte before the Court during the hearing of the dismite, thinking someone el-e would be then; lo do so. hverywhere in the colony they were troubled with the same thing. The Court did not think respondent intended to deceive them bv saving bo had not received tho registered letter. A breach had been proved, and respondent was fined £- aml £2 9s costs and expenses. WITHDRAWN. Wan Morris was charged with contracting with Messrs Price and Co. lo liui Id i rig a seven-room eel dwell inghouse (labrjur'only) at Petone. The respondent was called as ft witness by Mr Findlay (for the inspector), and admitted having taken Hie contract at £6O. It was submitted this constituted a breach of clause Jot the award (prohibiting piecework and sub-lotting). The case was put hack for the attendance of Mr Price, against whom a charge had been laid in connection with the sumo contract. When called on again, however Mr Findlay withdrew bdh charges, the Court allowing witness expenses to Morris. AX INDUSTRIOUS APPRENTICE. John Colville was charged with a breach of the Saddlers’ award. Mr F imllay, for tho inspector, sa.d respondent employed at nignt-timo an apprentice who was engaged b ydav at Butler Bros. 1* was contended that it respondent was entitled to so employ the apprentice ho should pay him tho rate of wages under tho award, lie paid him only 9d an hour. John Henry Chapman, the apprentice referred to, spoke to the facts outlined. Respondent submitted that, Chapman being an apprentice, he was quite within the award in paying 9d an hour. The president said this was the first case in the history of the Court when it had been shown that an apprentice had worked for another employer after his ordinary hours. The Court, could find, no justification whatever for what had been done by respondent. There was a breach, and the Court inflicted a penalty of .£2 and costs £2 2s. A PRECARIOUS SALARY. J. J. Moore was fined £2, costs £2 2s and expenses, and in addition ordered to pay back wages to an employee named Barker whom he was found to have been paying less than the proper wages under the drivers’ award. Barker mentioned

in evidence that on one occasion he had received 5s for a week’s work. A second and similar charge against the same respondent was adjourned until to-morrow. SHOPMAN OR GENERAL HAND ? P. J. Oakley, butcher, was charged with a breach of the butchers’ award, it being alleged that he had employed Richard Vince as shopman, and not paid him “shopman’s” wages. The defence was that Vince was only a general hand. The Court dismissed tbj information with expenses to respondent. A LITTLE MISUNDERSTANDING. Tho Master Bakers Union, represented by Mr W. A. Kellow, the president, defended a group of charges alleging breaches of the award in respect to tho payment of wages on a statutory holiday. Respondents; were Messrs H. Denhard, IV. Tonks and Son, MeEwen and Churchill, W. A. Kellow. Harto Langdon, A. Munro and E. Flint. It was contended for the inspector by Mr Findlay that not only was the date of the holiday (Prince of Wales’s Birthday)altered (respondents held it was by agreement) but that time and a half was not paid to the men employed on the said statutory holiday upon which work went on. A considerable amount of evidence was heard. The president said there was an obvious misunderstanding. Though Mr Kellow thought there was an agreement it was certain there was none binding on tho trade, arid could’not have been ono either under the statute or the award. There was really no question for the Court to answer. It had been necessary however, that the gentlemen concerned should attend to clear up a misunderstanding. As to tho question of overtime, that would have to” be paid by the several respondents. Each defendant was also ordered to par his own costs (10s 6d) and expenses in proportion. The Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.