ARBITRATION COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13650, 18 July 1908, Page 7

ARBITRATION COURT.

TfMARI'—FRIDAY, JULY 17lh. ißefore II is Honour Mr Justice Sim, and Messrs S. Brown and J. A. McCul- • lough). The Court sat at 10 a.m. The. iirst cases called were some- of breach of awards, but as parties were to com* in by train at a lat«-r hour, Timarn compensation easfs were taken. In the first of these Ruggir.6 v. Radcliffe. there was no appearance, the case having, been settled. The second case occupied sorarr time. A DAMAGED HAND. Wilhelmina Shaw (Mr Jordan) v. Geo. P.arrs (Mr Cooke) claim £l5O under the Workers.' Compensation Act for injury to a hand, by an accident arising out of and in the course of cmpioytr.L-ut. Mr Jordan stated ihie case to the Court-. Jn August last Wilhelmina Shaw, then 14 \vars and 10 months _o,it, obtained employment at the limarii Steam Lanndry. the property of respondent. She hail been employed about a fortnight, when, ou August 27th, an accident, happened to her. tshe was employed at the time in the drying room, helping another -girl to take sheets from a steam mangle and fold thenV. (A sketch of inangle was produced in Court, showing a large steam-heated roller with three smaller ones rolling upon its upper side). Miss Shears mow Mrs. Welsh) " fed" the sheets into the mangle, and the claimant and another girl named Ward took them from* it- and folded them The o'-her girl took the first end. and .claimant the other when it came through. Whilst so engaged her hand was drawn into the rollers, and it was so severely crushed and burned as to render it practically useless. Since the accident the girl had been tinder treaiment. by the hospital surgeon, and was still incapacitated from work. At the time of the succident her wages were 7s a week, and iif Burns paid her half wages (4s however instead of 5s 6d) nntil April last, when he discontinued the payments. The cv'iim was for compensation for permanent incapacity of the left hand; or half-weekly wages during incapacity. The claimant, Wilhelmina Shaw, gave evidence as to her employment, as stated by counsel. She admitted that she had stroked the rollers. To Mr Cooke: Did not remember being tnlti by Mrs. Burns, when she first went, that ii girt had had her hand nipped in thtt mvngle. Miss Shears, in charge of it, told* .her to mind and keep her hands on" the mangle. That was ; i few days before tbe accident. C'onlii not say thatMiis Shears did not tell her to take her hands off the roller ten minutes before the accident. The girls were not tol.t not to talk, but were told not to talk w> much. Was talking to Miss Ward at the time the accident happened. Could ii'jt say -why she stroked the roller. Had nevrr said the accident was her own fault. Hail left- school before going- to the laundry: had passed the third standard.

To Mr Jordan: When she had Iteen two dajs in hospital Mr Burns told her to say it was not carelessness, and to send any inquirer*, to him. I)r. 1). il. Bett, resident surgeon at The hospital, described the injury, which was a combined crush and burn—a burn

"of iher tilth degree." She conht do .1 little with her hand, but it was practicably useless.' Some improvement might lie effected by a " tendon operation," bat the percentage of {successes was small.

To Mr Cooke: Possibly a iitde improvement could lie made by removal nt two lingers, but the .h>inu wnmd be of very Jutle ns& tlien. Mrs. Shaw, mother of the claimant, slated- that she saw Mr Bums on :h----evening: of the accident. He told her hj- had his employees insured, and that lie did not think it was a vetv bad accident. He gave her half wages after .a. tnrtnight, and after that 4s a week. He stopped: paying in April, telling the Sj.rl, wuo went for the money, that ha was instructed to istop paying. I ndersinod chat he was to get the money tiai k irota the insurance! company. lier daughter could not hold or carry any.•hing in the injured liand, and there liad iieeu a Jot of crockery broken ihrotigh her trying to nse her hand. His Honour recalled tne girl to a*fc what Burns said to her when he stopped payuwnc. Witness said he told" her he Jiad word to stop from the insurance jieople. ibis closed the claimant's ca-e. 'Mr Cooke submitted (1) that it bad nof Jieen shown that the accident aro.««> out o»f and in the course of the einploruieiii; and (2) that it was due to. tne serious and wilful misconduct of the claimant. It would fie. showtt (hat when she went to tli«. employment a fortnight beJote, she was shown the machines and warned about tfrose that were dangerous. Mrs. Welsh (then Miss Shears) who was in charge of the mangle, had repeatedly told her to keep her hands off the rollers, the last time only about ten minutes Jiefore the accident. Mrs. Welsh wonld also say that claimam, after she came from the liospital, admitted that it was her own fault. Dr. H. V. Drew explained that the ecar on the back of the hand prevented the first finger from being vstd as it might be if the second and th:rd linger •were removed, and the scar replaced by healthy skin. Such an operation would There had never been an accident beiiand. Mrs. Burns, wife of respondent-, stated that on the first morning claimant was at the laundry she showed her the machines, and among otlier things told her there would bs no danger at the mangle if she" ke-nt her hands off tha rollers. There liad never been an accident before. To Mr Jordan: Had never seen Miss Show stroking the rollers. If shf hid seen it would have warned her against it.

Mrs. Welsli gave evidence 1 hat she had cautioned ihe girl. It. was not necessary to her work to put her hands on the tollers, and she 'had had enough experience of the mangle to know what to do. YVime.-LS liadl warned ber times out of number to take her hand off the roller, once about, ten minutes before the accident. The only reason for putting hands on the rollers was to warm them, the rollers being warm. Miss Shaw turned her back to the mangle to speak to Miss Ward, and put her hand on the roller, and it. was drawn into the mangie. .She hail not. hold of the. sheet. It' she had, if she had been actually doing her work, her hand could not have been drawn in. .Met- Miss Shaw after she. went to the hospital and she said it- was her own fault; shs had been wnnted. enough about, it. To Mr Jordan: Was confident that Miss Shaw had her back to the mangle. Told her it was her own fault. • Putting her hand on the toller was a careless act, not a. deliberate one. She had to wait a whil/k ior th-:* ■end- of 'the ah fit to eons'- out, and whi.e waiting she was talking, and rubbing the roller. She- was well aware of the risk she ran.

George Burns, respondent, stated that he heard a cry and went and took the girl's hand out of the mangle. He generally left the instruction of girls lo Mis. and Miss- Burns. Reported the accident to the Labour Department, and was told that he must pay half wages while the girl was laid up* He made the 3s 6d 4s and paid until April, until the insurance company told hiru to discontinue. Had made a claim, on (ho lompany.

To Mr Jordan: Had not been reimbursed by the company. Had not seen the girl rubbing the Toller. If he had he would have told her to stop it. Had not made any offer to settle the claim. Always checked talking as it took the girls' attention off their work.

To Mr Cooke: Generally left the supervision of each machine>, as lo safety, to the girl in charge of ii. 'lhe evidence of Miss Ward, taken at Auckland, was put in. 'J hi? wi.ness slated that claimant- ha.l her back to the uftngh; and was talking to her when the eccidt-nt happened and this concluded the evidence. Counsel then addressed the Court at some length, and both quoted numerous decisions.

Mr Cooke .submitted ili:tb thft accident did not. arise out of or in the course of employment, because the girl's duty did not require the putting of her .hand near the rollers. The risk of such an accident did not. attach »o the du:y she Ji.-ut to do. An illustrative east* quoted was that- of a ticket colleiter who, when his work was done got out on the footboard of another Train to to a friend, and was kilted. The railway company was' held not to lie liable. inasmuch as" Shaw was amusing heiself and talking, and was not doing any tiling necessary to her work, the respondent was not liable. A second defence was that the accident was due to iho serious and wilful misconduct of the claimant. The evidence had established this. The claimant had been instructed expressly ordered, and iepc-uU-dly warned, to keep her hands .off the rot Wis. The r.epoiideiit could have done no moiv than he did to prevent aicident. Analogous cases wherein misconduct had barred a claim Wi re. those of an engine-driver, who against instructions got. on the tender and was killed by a bridge; of a girl employed on a threshing jniil who was toM t« remain where site was .put, but did. not do so and was hurt; of a boy engaged on a flax mill to remove fibre from a mill, and was told to k-t certain fibres aione, but neglected the order and w;.t; killed; of a- girl employed at a confecijonaiy n/achine who put her hand where she ought not to have pub it and was injured. .Mr Cooke also argued that the making of payments by respondent on :he advice of the Inspector of Factories was not an admission of liability. His ilonour said It did not take much more than payments to constitute evidence of an agreement, to atcept lability.

Mr Cooke: There has been no admission of liability. The attitude of mspondent has be u thaf he would fight th.; ,ciise.

His Honour: There is no evidence of that. He was told by the ln.-pei.tor that he would Jiave to pay, and he paid. Continuing Mr Cooke said that if 'die Couif. found that respondent was liable, the qm»fion of compensation must be considered. The medical evidence, lie pointed out, wits that the hand was not entirely tisekts and could lie somewhat impioved l>y an operation. Besides the girl might do clerical work and earn more than at laundry work. Then she might many-; therefore a large lump sum should not be awarded. Respondent would prefer a weekly payment. Mr Jordan criticised the cases quoted as illustrative of wilful misconduct, contending that in every one of tliejn the viciim. of the accident liad disobeyed a positive command. He tlien quoteu somc caties for their ijiterpielation of "serious and wilful misconduclV' to show that this n.t>ant sometliing inure ilion carelessness, /it-giect of serious advice, or momentaiy loigefftiiuess of a caution or order. In the c.'tjee before the Court, a- point had Jteen made />/ fhe fact that the girl tairned hei' back to the mangle; but that she must 'flccessiiiily do when die taught the end of the sheet in order to co-operate in the folding of it with the girl at the other end. It was necesury for her to stand idle till the sheet came through, and the opportunity for fbrgerfulne.-« came- Ji). Mr Jordan also spoke on the question of the effect of payments having been made-, and said something about overtures by the insurance company having been' finally lefused. His Honour said there was no evidence about oi'4*-tures having been made. In closing the case his Honour said the d.timant was not, e.oiitjed to a lump sum; it joust be, if anything-, a weekly pay-

inenf. Decision was reserved. CARPENTERS' AWARD. B. Butcher, butcher of Pleasant Point, was summoned by the Inspector of .factories, Mr Donald, for paying a carpenter, C. Luud, 8s 6d ;i. day, insk-ad of 10s Bd' the award- raw. Respondent pleaded guiliy, but ''explained that he gave Mr Dosseit a job to carry out some work by day labour, and lelu everything to him except the payment of the men employed, and he paid them himself from a time sheet supplied by Dos.sett. He knrw nothing of ihe award, until afterwards. He had not dona anything to rectify (he mistake. His Honour said he should have done so an -soon as he was informed of i?ne mistake, and because he had not done no a line of £2 and fees was imposed. J. Collett, builder, Waimate, charged wi It employing an apprentice withemt indenturing iiim, did not appear nor was any "defence tiled. A fine of £5 was imposed. R. Cochrane, charged with employing two men. as carpenters at &v and B.s 6d a. day, without a permit, stated that he employed the men before the award came ou . He said that he was entitled to employ one under paid man for each three on lull pay, and he had six of these. He did not know that, he had to get a ]x-r----mhi-to do that. When he learned that he got the permi s. The Cowt accepted the -explanation that the breach was the result of a. misunderstanding and imposed a fine of £2 only and fees. J*. Cochrane and J. Watt, the two employees pleaded the same misunderstanding in reply to a change of accepting low pay. A breach was recorded, and -they were ordered to pav fees only. " THRESHING "MILLS AWARD. W. Hardwicke, thrashing mill owner, Waimate, was charged with bleach of the. Waimate workers and threshing millers' award by failing to keep. in tihe gaily a pass book ecntflining a record of the provisions purchased. Mr Sargent appeared for Lim and explained that the book was kept, but from time to time was sent, lo the sttpplieis vo have the items checked. said it was usually two or three days away, .sometimes a. week. Mr Donald, inspector of Factories, said it was away- at least a. fortnight:- on one occasion.

A tine of £2 was imposed. ,

J.' T. M. Gram-j Alex. Maxwell, and D. McMillan weie charged with breach of the same award by leaving their employment without giving a wvek'ts notice to their employer, James Wiltson, of Aiiandale, for whom Mr Kinnerney appeared; none of the dcfendaii.s appeared.

.Mr Wilson sta'ied that hue mill was supplied witli tarpaulins to cover stacks with if necessary. He wanted one to make a- refrewhment tent at a clearing sale and nhe weather being fine he sent l<> the mill for one. He nitusengers twice and the men refused to give up the tarpaulin, and he went himself and got i.. ihe men threatened to knock off if it were taken. They tinished the 6uiok they were at and then all hands leit. The .weather continued fine. . Their, action caused much inconvenience and lr/.ii, as he found it difficult to get uno.her crew, there being little work to do, and he had ft pay railway fares to get men up. Acting on advice lie paid the men, but deducted a, week's wages. That, however, did not. compensate. Jum for qhe ln:«.

The three men (the otheis Jiad notl been served with suminunti) were fined £2 each'. CARPENTERS' AWARD.

O'Brien and Beaton, builders, Fairiie, w-eie cliarged with employing two apprentices, Wharton and Mana.on, without indenturing them. Mr J-liiuilie appeared for the Department, Mr lvinnerney for O'Brien and ilr Sargent for Beaton, the respondents having dissolved partnership. • The apprenlic<=« were taken on in 1906 when Whar.ou was 18, and Mauaton 16 yea.l 6 of age. Mr Em.-.ie islated that the respondents 'dissolved part net ship in March J. tit, and before thai the inspector found that they 'were employing iihe two iinindentuicd apprentices.

it b. ing admitted that the apprentice's wete not bound, the respondents were -called on for an explanation'. Mr lvinnerney tai'd -^j.lie' youths were taken over with the business by his client, and th y were then indentured in '• April. He subini ttd that! the award- requiring the. indenturing of youths of 16 and 18 was in conflict with the Mui-.teis and Apprentices Act of 1865, as this Act required apprenticfobips- no be for Jive years; and to terniinae when the apprentices leached nineteen years of age. The two could not be complied with in the case of youths of 16 and 18, In their case indentures must be illegal, His Honour, quoting Judge Chapman, fiiid, not illegal but unenforceable. . . Mr lvinnerney pointed out several ways, in which the award must be held to be 'aff.'cted by the statiue of 1865. Mr Sargent said, he Jiad just to concur iriili -Mr Kinneniey, but he added some remarks on the quaint requirements of clause 8 of the Act. , Mr Kinnerney said that this clause evidently related "to orphans only, and the two appi«nticcs were not orphans. Mr Kmiliei in reply said the legislature must have had U)i» Act before them. it related more to destitute children tliiin to the sons and daughters of people able to loolfe after them. The repealing clause showed that. Jiut atiiuming that the Act- applied, and that an apprenticeship must expire at 19, the indentures would be valid in the meantime. Jt was a. peculiar tiling that sucli a peculiar Jaw still remained on the Statute Book as a general law wheal it was not intended to apply to apprentices generally. There was nothing to prevent a man of. 21 binding himself for five years. So long as the Act would be enforced, the indentures should ba entered into. This Court had no power to fix any age at which an apprenticeship must begin ov terminate,

<•■ Mr-Kinnerney argued that claiise 9/was entirely general'.and .that ••limited the age ol apprenticeship. , Bis Honour said the Court -would consider the matter, and this being jail the business the Court adjourned- afc 1.10 p.m. SOMEONE BLUNDERED.

'■' After the Court rose, a -man •. named Smith, a sheiiherd and. drover of Fairlie, •informed the; registrar that ho had-been wrongly summoned as one of Mr Wilson's threshers, and had lost a fortnight's work through it. Mr Wilson iidvised him to wri <' to tlw Labour Department aljwill ii_; the- Court, ■could do uolhing.