ARBITRATION COURT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14281, 1 August 1908, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. The Arbitration Court sat at 10 o'clock yesterday morning, Ins Honor ilr Justice ,-iim presiding, to hear a claim for compensation iiuwlo liy John J'aUineon, ecal miner, against the Allandale Coal Company. Tno particulars of churn were that Pattinson wad a liliag Point miner; that an accident occurred at the Allandale nrino on June 9, 1906, while he was taking down a- coal face; that the, insult was that he was injured about the left foot and ankle; that he had been permanently and totally incapacitated from work; that his.wagcshad averaged £3 a week; that he had received £43 10s during the period of-his incapacity, and that the amount lie claimed as compensation was £l 10s per week. Respondent's reply was that claimant's incapacity was not permanent nor total; that his average earnings wore not £3 a week; that, at tho time the £43 10s was paid he had recovered from his injury, and that that was the full sum he was entitled to recover under the act.

Mr Wm. C. MacGregor appeared for claimant, and Mr J. H. Hosking, K.C., and Mr Alien for respondents. Mr MucGrcgov said that until the accident occurred olaimant was working at the Allandale mine for five or six years. He had been a coal minor all his life—-since he was 10 years of age—and started in Cumberland. Pal.linson was a very good coal miner, but he was an illiterate man and unfit for any othor occupation. On Juno 9, 1906, ho was working at the faco taking down coal, when a fall of coal took place, and unfortunately the outer portion of the coal caught his left foot aad ankle and crushed them raiher badly. No bones were apparently broken, but the injury seemed to iiave been more permanent in its nature than if Ixmos had boon broken, because up to now Pattinson had been quite unable to do coal mining and unable to cam his living. After the accident he was taken home and laid up for some weeks, and was attended 1 first by Dr Collier, and then by Dr Hislop. Hie foot remained sore, stiff, and useless, and ho made a claim on the company. The matter was taken up _ by the insurance company—fcho South British—and' a good many negotiations took place. ' Finally, in December, 1906, respondents made a payment of £43 10s. That was calculated on an average weekly earning of £5. Pattinson in his claim claimed on £3 12s a week, but after some discussion both parties agreed, for tho purpose of compensation, that the earnings- should be taken at £3 a week, so tliat Pattinson was entitled to £1 10a a week during incapacity. Accompanying the payment, which was made en January 8 : 1907, was a letter fiom (he manager of the South British Company staling that Pattinson -would get light work at tho mine, and claimant expected to got 'this light work, but never got it. Of course, it was impossible to give a man light work in a colliery. From that day to this Pattinson had not been able to do any work. His foot, to all appearances, was all right, but whenever any stress was placed upon tho instep the loot pot hot, painful, uncomfortable, and useless, and if that continued any length of time tha pain wa6 so great that he had to give up work altogether. To show that Pattinson was not a lazy man, he would tell the court that not verylong before the accident he was working in the mine and complained of being put in special places, and said he would rathor lake his chance at piece work in place of working shift wages. The question the court would have to consider was that of incapacity on tho part of claimant. Tho question was whether the incapacity continued to the present day. Evidence was given by John Pattinson, Henry Pattinson, Sarah Pattinson, and Dr Hi6lop. Mr Hosking said ho was not going to trouble the court with any address, but would state the evidence they were going to call. They, would call Dr Barnett, whose evidence would bo to come extent in conflict with that of Dr Hislop. They would also call evidence showing that Fattinson, who had been able to get up a most excellent linip in court that morning, had' beon seen walking about in the neighbourhood without any such limp as had been, seen in the court. He (Mr Hosking) would also call evidence to show that the weekly wages to which Pattinson was on-titled— the 50 per cent.-were £1 4s Id. He would call the mine manager, who would give evidence as to a statemont showing tho time claimant had worked during the 12 months previous. to tho accident. The total number of weeks he had worked was 31. The reason he had not worked 52 was that lie was altogether absent from the mine, having left from tho end of December to the 11th April. Seeing that ho he had worked 34 wc J.; his earnings during that, time were £81 15s lOd, which gave a weekly average; if divided, by 34, of £2 8s Id; That was tho principle-established in arriving at,an average. What claimant had done had been to take the number of days ho had worked and divide by six to. produce the average. It was purely a question of what -they were to ho divided by. With regard to the payment made in December, he (Mr Hosking) would call evidence to show the exact footing upon which that payment was made. The company was not, satisfied the man was genuinely incapacitated, and a larnain was made that, by way of Jompromise, ho should receive £43 lCs, which was up to 30s a week, and that if lie went to work, which, by the report of Dr Barnett, ho was able to do, they would give him £7 10s more, but if he did not do that • no further payment would be made, and tlte parlies would stand upon ihoi-r leral rights. Therewas no intention that Pattinson should understand his average earnings were to he treated as £3 a week. The £7 10s was promised as an inducement to the man to go back to work. Evidence was given by Dr Barnett, William Everest ( secretary Allandale Coal Company), Charles H. Wes-tneld (manager), John Andrew (employed at Shag Point), and Charles Frederick Jones (South British Insurance .Company). Mr Hosking and Mr MacGregor addressed the court, which reserved its decision. The court, at 4.30,. was adjourned to 10 o'clock on Monday morning. AWARDS AND INTERPRETATIONS. Tho following award and interpretations wero filed with the clerk of awards yesterday afternoon: — Southland Botchers. The terms of the award made in the dispute between the Invercargill and Suburban Master Butchers Industrial Union of Employers , and the Southland Operative Butchers Industrial Union of Workers are similar to those appearing in the reference, which was published a •few days ago. GOLD-MINBBS AWARD. Clause 3.-j©vertimo for work done on Sundays and holidays shall be paid for in accordance with the provisions of "The Mining Act Amendment Act, 1906." Question: Which days are to be classed as holidays? Answer: The court, by its award, left payment for work done'on Sundays and holidays in exactly the same position in which it was placed by the Legislature by "The Mining . Ad ' Amendment Act, 1906." The question submitted is therefore not ;i question us to the interpretation of the court's award, but as to the intorpretation of section 6 of that act. There is no specification of the holidays referred to in that section, and probably the Legislature intended that the holidays should he those specified in section 4 of " The Interpretation Act, 1888." If the parties are not. agreed to accept this as tho proper interpretation of the act of 1906, a deuision can brj obtained on the subject by bringing an action in the Warden's Court to recover overtime for any day which is claimed by the union to lie a holiday, and for which any employer will not pay ovortime. Engineer's Award. Clause 4.—A1l journeymen employed on repairing work outside their employers' workshop or establishment shall be paid Is per day each extra as dirt monoy. Question: Are apprentices classed as journeymen under (his clause? That is, are they entitled to dirt money? Answer: An apprentice is not a journeyman and is not entitled to dirt money. Typographical Award. Clause 4.—The day's work for efficient, operators to consist of not more than seven hours, at not less than £3 10s per week for day operators and not less than £3 16s for night operators. By time: Is 8d per hour for day operators; Is lOd per hour for night operators. Overtime, except as mentioned in paragraph 3, to be one-third extra. Piecework, pot 1000, with all fat (with respect to advertisements as provided for by clauses 50 and 31, and otherwise as provided for in this award): Type up to and including brevier, 3d; bourgeois, 3{d; long primer, 3Jd: without fat, i!A all type. Operators to be allowed to use thick space-bands for minion and larger type. Question: Docs the provision in clause 4 of one-third extra for overtime apply to piece-work operators? Answer: The clause in the present award with regard to overtime is tho same as that contained in the industrial agreement made between the parties in 1904. That clause in tile agreement, the employers allege, has always been interpreted in practice k not

giving piece-workers lo he paid extra for work done in overtime hours. If that interpretation has always been acted on, then as such an interpretation is not inadmissible in view or. the language of clause 4, the ease appears to come within the decision of the court in the case of Inspector of Awards v. Whitcombe and Tombs. If the parlies arc not agreed its lo the practice being us stated by the employers, the question can be tested by bringing a case for enforcement.