ARBITRATION COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6623, 12 September 1908, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT.

WORKERS’ ACCIDENT CLAIMS. OASES AGAINST HARBOUR AND HOSPITAL HOARDS. RESERVED JUDGMENTS DELI VEUED. The Arbitration Court, presided over by Judge Sim, with Messrs S. Brown and .1. A. McCullough, employers’ iinrl employees’ representatives respectively, bar! u good deal of business before it yesterday, the, Wellington .sittings being concluded. Tlio men, concerned in tho iecent strike of; operative bakers were dealt with (Tho 1 ease being reported in another column): two claims under tlio Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act were heard : and several reserved! judgments were delivered. The Court* sat from 0.30 a.m. until 4 p.m. OnMonday the Court goes to Napier. WILCOX v, HOSPITAL BOARD Hurry Wilcox, labourer, claimed CM JO from the District of Wellington Mosp’tal Board. Mr Blair appeared [or claimant; while tho respondent Board was represented by Mr Treadwell. In the application for arbitration it was set out that claimant strained ills heart by lifting heavy stumps and over-exertion at Otaki on February ■lib. 1998, Ko had been engaged at slumping paddocks and concrete work. Ho had been totally incapacitated for seven months, and it was probable

that bn would bo permanently partially incapacitated. His weekly earnings wore set out at £2 14a for the past twelve montlis. Claimant bad been ordered to cease work for sir: months. Ho claimed £3OO. The claimant subsequently amended his claim by inserting in lion of February .Ith, tho words “4th day of March,” as tho day on which tho accident was alleged to have occurred. INDIGESTION. Mr Blair said tho plaintiff was working for the Board at the Otaki Sanitnrium, and while stumping strained himself. lie complained to ono of tho men working with him at tho time. Two days later ho saw Dr Huthwaito at the sanitnrium, wjio said he was suffering from indigestion, an affection of tho heart being responsible in tho first place. The doctor's treatment did him no good. Witness worked for some time after with difficulty, having to frequently rest. About a month later he consulted n Palmerston doctor, whoso diagnosis did not agree with that of tho sanitarium doctor. Ho declared tho trouble with tho heart was duo to a strain. Later on he consulted Dr McKenzie, of Levin, who agreed with the Palmerston doctor. Wilcox then took stops in regard to compensation. Ho complained to the matron, to the supervisor of his work (Mr Conncl), and also to Dr Huthwaito, whom ho informed must bo wrong. Tho claim was late, but it was contended that this was unavoidable, duo in the first place to tho advice of the sanitorium doctor. Tho want of notice was alleged in answer to tho claim, hut -Mr f Blair held that tho reason given was .sufficient answer. Provision was made in certain cases for extension of time. Tho claimant was honestly misled by a servant of the respondent, who,' by lulling the claimant into a false sense of security, had defeated anv ground for the defence of lateness of notice. It was contended that tho injury to tile claimant’s heart was due to his succeeding in raising a s,tump out of the ground which was beyond his power. A WOMAN'S EVIDENCE.

Edith Maud Soaloy, matron of tho sanitorium, called for the claimant, said Wilcox had worked at the sanitorium off and on for some years. In May or Juno Wiicox asked her if the labourers were insured. _ She did not know and referred him to Mr Willis, secretary of tho Board. He also said ho had hurt himself in stumping, but did nob officially make the complaint. To Mr Treadwell: Wilcox made_ tho statement in regard to the injlliy some months back. all sorts of hard work. Harry Wilcox, tho claimant, said he started working at the sanitorium in March or April 1200. His duty consisted of all sorts of hard workmixing and wheeling concrete, carrying bricks and mortar to tho top of tho building for six weeks. Ho was also employed at fencing. Ho and another man had carried straining posts weighing 3c\Vt. Ho had a holiday at Christinas time, and started on the 10th of February at grubbing, stumping, draining and concrete work. It was on March 4th when ho was injured, in removing a stump from the ground. In attempting to lift tho stump with his hands ho felt something give in his inside. Ho felt a slight pain, and when ho got the stump on his shoulder ho let it go. He knocked off, not caring to do any more lifting and commenced clearing supplejacks from a roadway. He lifted tho stump at about 11 o’clock. While having dinner at tho sanitorium he complained to Donald Wilson, a carpenter, saying ho did not fool so well; also to Mr Beckett, a fellowworkman, in tho afternoon. Ho returned to work after lunch, and continued on the light work. After that ho did not do any heavy work. On the following evening ho felt a slight ■K-diuiation. On tho evening of the sixth ho felt shortness of breath and palpitation. Ho saw Dr Huthwaito on tho 6th. Ho told tho doctor lie had palpitation, and ho was examined, but not“thorouglily,as other doctors do.” Dr Huthwaito said ho had indigestion. Hostoid tho doctor he thought ho had hurt himself lifting, bnt did not mention where it was ho thought the injury had taken place. Ho followed tho doctor’s treatment for indigestion. Witness continued working at the sanitorium till about April 2nd after ho met with the accident. During that time lie was able to do ordinary work. Witness's weekly earnings averaged about £2 10s Bd. He had consulted Dr Martin of Palmerston North and Dr McKenzie of Levin. SEVEN YEARS AGO.

Claimant in cross-examination by Mr Treadwell said ho did not have heart trouble four years ago. Over three years ago he worked for a man named Taylor, cutting posts. Ho never remembered tolling Taylor that bo was suffering from a severe strain

of the heart from lifting logs. Ho ‘'-lid not -strain liis heart, and if a witness was to iy he had done so the witness would he drawing upon his imagi nation. "wlnoss did not remember telling Dr Martin at Palmerston North that lie had had his heart seven years ago. Ho- may have had a heart strain a number of years before. MEDICAL EVIDENCE. Dr MeGavin testified to examining claimant on tlie previous day. lii.s heart showed symptoms of overstraining. To Mr Treadwell : The heart affection may have been tho recurrence of an old trouble. The work that claimant had boon doing did not appear to have bom of an extra heavy nature for him. iiis condition could have been brought about by constant exertion. "U ituos.i did not believe that anything had given way inside of claimant; or that a valve had been ruptured. If this had happened claimant would not have been able to go buck (o his work. To Mr Plain Claimant probably had a heavy .strain. DILATATION OF THE HEJA-RT. Dr ivlartin, Palmerston North, stated that on May 11th he examined claimant, who wrus suffering from a dilated heart. Ho considered the trouble was of old. standing. Claimant told witness he had strained his neart seven years ago and again recently . A. person getting a sudden dilatation ot tho heart from a strain woidfl not ho able to work for at least tu onty-four hours. Ho would have to jio down. Claimant was not suffering from a sudden dilatation. An extra strain might have made claimants condition a little worse; it might have aggravated the trouble. Claimant was getting worse as time went on. The lifting of the 10~ a.legcd was not responsible for claim" auUj condition: although tho effect Ot ela nuaiit having done so might hnro a/lected him for a period of throe or l°nr months. It would have made m. V'*"*' Voider of front)). Jo Mr Treadwell: Witness had seen dfo t I ? K n 11, ( ° al "l nn G c ' ,ndit ion to indreato that ho had received a recent

w°{I al i d Wi,s ° n tliat claimant had remarked to him that the •, V* doj ”g was not “ a one man r job.’ JjridfMico was also given by several Other witnesses who had worked with tviicox: and this closed tiie case for the claimant. FOR THE- RESPOYDIi\TS, George Taylor, the first witness for tJio respondents, said lio was a farmer belonging to Otaki. Uo knew claimant, who m 1904 had informed witness that ho had strained his heart. He said ho had done this by lifting a post into a dray at Horowhemia. Dr Iyffo gave evidence concerning nis examination of claimant ou August 21st. Ho was suffering from dilatation of the heart. To Mr Blair: Witness did not agree altogether with Dr McGavin. Claimants condition, in witness’s opinion, was not tho result of the accident alleged. Dr Huthwaito testified to examining claimant, who was suffering from some functional disturbance of the heart. Witness told claimant that he did not consider that his work had had anything to do with tlie condition of ins heart.

By Mr Blair: Claimant’s services had been retained at the Sanatorium when a lot of other men had been nut off. _ 1 This concluded tho evidence. ALLEGED FRAUD. In reviewing the case, Mr Treadwell submitted that claimant’s claim was a bogus one- Indulgence of tho Court was asked for, but before tho Court could extend this tho caso must be bona fide, and claimant must oomo with clean hands, and not bring forward tnat which practically amounted to a fraud. The heart trouble had lasted for years, and the only point that could bo mad© was that tho action of lifting the log might possibly have aggravated tho trouble. Mr Blair contended that tho reason for delay was on account of claimant having been told ho was suffering from indigestion. To say it was a matter of fraud was to greatly strain the case. Judgment was reserved. ROY v. HARBOUR BOARD Alfred Franklyn Roy, rigger, of Epuni street, Wellington, claimed £3OO from the 'Wellington Harbour Board in respect to an accident alleged to have happened to him while in the employ of the Board. Mr Weston appeared for the- Board. Claimant was not represented by counsel. Tho statement of claim set out that tho accident occurred while claimant was replacing a leg in running gear in “C” shed on Juno 30th, 1908; or that it was duo to tho runner slacking up with a jerk, causing him to dislocate his shoulder. Gaimant contended that by tho accident he had been totally incapacitated from work, and tliat his average weekly earnings were £2 9s 6d whilst in the Board’s employ. THE DEFENCE. Tho defence was a complete denial of tho foregoing statements. The Board further stated that prior to June 30th tho claimant, had dislocated his shoulder. On Juno 30th his shoulder was iu such condition as to bo subject to a recurrence of such dislocation upon the body being placed in a certain position, and tliat such recurrence was not tho result of any accident in tho course of his employment but was due to such condition of tho shoulder, and tliat his shoulder was in tho same state after June 30th, 1908, as it was before. Claimant therefor© had not suffered any injury. STRAPPING THE ARM.

The claimant, on being sworn, deposed that the injury complained of occurred while he was in the service of tho Board. He had put his shoulder out, and after having it attended to had resumed his work. He had put his shoulder out several times since, and ho finally went to tho hospital for treatment. Hr Brown had told witness that nothing could be done for him, beyond the arm being strapped up. He was told to take a rest for five or sis months, and was given a certificate stating that ho should leave work for a week. Tho doctor did not strap up the a-rm. In 1905 ho had had his shoulder dislocated. Since then he had had four dislocations. Mr Montefior© had offered him a harness for the injury, but ho had refused to take it, because if he had don© so he would have had to sign off his liability. Dr Brown, assistant surgeon of the Wellington Hospital, testified to examining claimant. .Recurring dislocation he said, might affect the shoulder. As far as ho saw, tho

shoulder was not tender. If claimant had taken some rest there might have been less chance of further dislocation. There was always a chance when tho body got into n certain xwsition of a recurrence.

The evidence of several witnesses who had worked with claimant was also taken. JUDGMENT FOR THE BOARD.

The Court did not think it necessary to hear evidence on the Board’s behalf, and after a brief consultation with his colleague®, Judge Sim said tho accident was not of such a nature as to disable claimant from going on with his work, Tho dislocation was able to bo reduced, and there was no reason why ho could not have resumed his duty. Claimant was not entitled to compensation, as he had failed altogether to prove that tho accident had incapacitated him. Tho case would bo dismissed.

Hr Weston intimated that Mr Montefiore, of the Ocean Accident Insurance Company, was willing to giyo claimant a permanent harness for his injury.

A UNIONIST aUESTXON. CASE OF .AN HOTEL EAIPLOYEE. Judgment was given in Inspector of Awards v. Jerome Bacovitch and Mary Jane Bacovitch, respondents. His Honor said — Iu this case it is alleged that the respondents committed an offence under section 108 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1905, by dismissing from their employment, on Juno 25th, 1903, a worker named Andrew Hamilton, by reason merely of the fact that he was a member of tho Cooks and Waiters’ Industrial Union of Workers. Tho respondent Mary Jane Bacovitch is the proprietor of tho Zealandia Hotel, Wellington. Tho other respondent, who is blind, is her husband. and assists her, as far as ho can in tho management of tho hotel. Andrew Hamilton, who had recently arrived in New Zealand from Glasgow, was engaged by Mrs Bacovitch, towards tho end of May, 1903, as a, kitchen hand, and worked in the hotel up to Juno 27th. Ho was not a member of the union when ho was engaged, but joined on June 23rd. Tho Court was satisfied'that the reason why Mr Bacovitch dismissed Hamilton was because the latter bad joined tho union. An offence, therefore, was committed under section 103 of tho Act of 1905, and the Court ordered the respondent Mrs Bacovitch to pay the sum of £2 to tho Inspector of Awards as a penalty for such offence, and to pay tho inspector’s disbursements for foes of Court and witnesses’ expenses to bo fixed by the Clerk of Awards. Tho caso against Mr Bacovitch was dismissed. He was not Hamilton’s employer and did not come within th© terms of the section.

A CARTERTON CASS. AN APPEAL DISMISSED. His Honor gave judgment in re Carterton branch of the "Wellington Timber Yards and Sawmills Industrial Union of "Workers (appellants) and Registrar of Industrial Unions (respondent). This was an appeal from tho refusal of the Registrar to register the appellant as a union under tho_lndustrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1905. It was claimed, amongst other thins?, that owing to the distance between Carterton and Wellington, the consenuent inconvenience and inability of Carterton to avail itself of representation or to take part in administrative affairs, the expense and loss of time in sending delegates to the different meetings, it would he more advantageous, expedient and inexpen-

! siv© for the Carterton branch to be ro--1 gistcrcd separately, than to belong to ' tho Wellington Union.

Tho branch union‘at Carterton was formed in 1932 and hay now about 20 members on its books. The parent union has brandies also in Napier, Dannovirke, Palmerston North, Bedding, Wanganui, Levin and Mastcrton. All the timber workers in tho industrial district are now ■working under an award which was made on the application of tho parent union in 1907. “If the argument based on tho distance of Carterton from Wellington were allowed to prevail,” said his Honor, “ it would mean that all tho branches wc have named would be entitled to registration also as independent unions. This would certainly lead to that needless multiplication of unions which it is tho expressed object of th© Legislature to avoid. We think that tho appellant has failed to make out any case on this ground. Nor has tho appellant put forward anything in the dinpo of evidence or argument to establish that owing to diversity of interest or other substantial reason it is necessary for tho Pliant, to obtain separate registration. Wo therefore, dismiss the appeal and report to the Registrar that it ia the opinion of the Court the Registrar’s refusal to register the appellant Union should he insisted on.”