ARBITRATION COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1123, 17 December 1914, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

CHRISTCHORCH SITTING.

The sitting of the Arbitration Court; in Christchurch was opened to-day, his Konor Mr Justice Stringer presiding. Mr W. Pryor was present as employers' representative and Mr J. _ A. M'Cullough as workers' representative.

DATES DETERMINED. Dates wero fixed for the compensation cases as follows:

Rayner (Mr Acland) v. New Zealand Provision and Produce Company (Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C.), Friday, at 9.30 a.m

Gough (Mr Hunter) v. the King (Sir Wright), on Friday, at 10 a.m., followed by Munro (Mr Hunter) v. the King (Mr Wright) and Public Trustee (Mr Cassidy) v Hordern (Mr S. GRaymond), K.C.), at'2 p.m., followed by' Herron (Mr Johnston) v. Union, Steam Ship Company (Mr Beswick). Manson (Mr Cassidy) v. Sims (Mr Alpers) on Saturday at 10' a.m., followed by Johnson. (Mr Cassidy) v. Sims (Mr Alpers). . AWARDS MADE. Complete recommendations filed with the Concilirtion Commissioner were presented tc the Court in the following industries and orders were granted making them awards; — Saddle, Harness and Collarmskers, Jewellers, Gardeners, Canterbury Freezing Works (sausage casing section), Canterbury Motor-car, Horse Drivers and Livery Stables. WOOLEEN MILLS DISPUTE. In the woollen mills dispute,. Mr Cooper, on behalf of the employers, ofc* jected to the award being nnde introspective, relying on the Dunedin judgment in the industry. ' His Honor said that the Wellington award was made to date from" August 1 with the condition that if legislation '. was passed by Parliament affecting the hours the award should cease to - operate. If the Court had com* ■ straight to Christchurch from Wellington the award would have been made . in Christchurch, and at first glance it looked as if the employers in Canterbury had taken advantage of the delay to escape paying the higher wages. Mr Cooper said that the employers recognised that once the higher wages were paid it would be difficult to rei duce them, even if. the award ceased to operate. l It was decided to hold over the matter until Saturday. LYTTELTON WATERSIDE WORKERS.

Mr Coopor appeared for the employers in support of an application to have an industrial agreement with the Lyttelton Waterside Workers' Union made an award. Mr WPCombs, 3V1.P., appeared to oppose the application. Mr Cooper said that in face of fhe ' Court's decision in a similar application, in Gisborne ho would withdraw hi*. application.

PARTIES ADDED. Orders were made to add parties to the following awards:—Canterbury Stationary and Traction Enginedrivers' Award, Canterbury Drivers Award, Canterbury Bootmakers' Award, Canterbury Carpenters' and Joiners' Award. JOURNALISTS' CASE. Mr Sullivan, on behalf of the Christchurch Journalists' Union, applied to have the Canterbury Publishing Company joined as a party to the Christchurch Newspaper importers and .frooi-readers' Award. Mr E. C. Huie, on behalf of the Canterbury Publishing Company, objected to the company being joined, and stated that at the original hearing the company had been specially exempted, apecial provisions in the award would be necessary to meet special conditions, and they would ainouut to a new award. The "Sun" published one newspaper, the employees of the other companies,-worked, for, 1 three. Mr' Sullivan said that the Court's exemption was merely a postponement; of the matter because the " Sun"newspaper was not in existence when the case was heard.. The "Sun" was now in competition with the other newspapers bound by the award, and it wai unthinkable that the Court j would exempt a hrm from the operations of an award whioh bound ita competitors. Mr Huie also remarked ' that, with the war in progress it was difficult to see what nngnx be the results of an alteration of conditions. It might' work a serious injustice on the newspaper, which wai young and had to undergo the usual vicissitudes of newspapers- He suggested that the application should stand over. Mr Sullivan stated that in his experience the Court had never taken into consideration the financial condition of any ono firm to bo added to. any award. In answer to Mr Pryor, Mr Sullivan said that the memorandum attached to tho award referred to reporters for two newspapers working longer hours than in the case of men employed on, one paper only. Industrial agreements had been arrived at in other centres governing morning and evening newspapers controlled by different firms. His Honor remarked that it might bo found desirable to join the company with certain modifications, but. he was not conversant with the award and would consider the whole matter. If necessary, evidence could be led by the parties. Tho Court would consider the objections raised by Mr Huie, and would mention the matter at i. later stage in tho Christchurch tingsCOMPENSATION CASES. O'DONNELL v. DOUGLAS. In John O'Donnell (Mr Dougall) y, Elizabeth Douglas (Mr iJ'rycr), the plaintiff claimed under the Workers'' Compensation Act for permanent injury to his left shoulder. He sought, judgment for £1 a wtek for eight uceu.s from September 5, £1 medical expenses' and £1 a week from October 31, tho date of total incapacity. Mr Dougall said that tho claimant., was ovor sixty years of age, and had. worked for Mrs Douglas as handy man/' about her farm. On May 15, 1914, while leaving the storehouse with wheat to feed to pigs he slipped and fell heavily on his shoulder. Tho claimant did not think his shou'der was injured' seriously at the time, but later he discovered that it was permanently. x'h'o' claimant had not wilfully neglectedhis shoulder. Tie had been attending a Dr Morris for palpitation of the heart, and mentioned to him that his shou'der was hurt. Dr Morris did not examine the shoulder, but gave him a lotion which lie rubbed in. During August Dr Parry examined the shoulder and on September 4 the claimant left work. Later Dr Quthrie performed an. operation. The complainant, gave evidence, and Norah Elizabeth Douglas, daughter of' ib.9 respondent, said that ehe ana h«&;^

jnother had attributed O'DoiuieUV stiff- • ness to rheumatism. Dr J. Guthrie said that O'Donnell's left arm was permanently incapacitated Mr Fryer, said that the defence admitted, the facts of the accident, btil contended that the .claimant's vcfusa to obtain medical advice -had contributed to the man's present 'condition. His Honor held that there.had Iwo no unreasonable refusal to obtain medical assistance,' and said that it could not he put forward as a defence. Dr J. C. Palmer said that O'Donnell could carry a full bucket with liis left arm, but could not raise the arm. He could hoe or rake. Tho Court allowed the claimant six ■ weeks at 20s a week for total incapacitv, and assessed the decrease in liioarning capacity at 20s, and the half computed tor six years was £l3B fts 9d and costs. Mr Fryer asked for .the amount to be left at weekly payments. Mr Dougall: It is an insurance company that is defending. Mr Fryer: There is the sporting chance — '— . ~. His Honor: Of his dying before six years? I won't give you that sporting chance. Mr Fryer: Oh, no; a chance of recovery. ■ '. . The Court adhered to its decision to give a lump sum John Davies (Mr Weston) claimed from Lnttrell Bros. (Mr Grosson). under the Workers' Compensation Act. for injuries, to his thumb, incapacitating him for work as a; stonemason. Tho accident was admitted by the defence. The claimant said that he could not obtain work as a stonemason, and had not tried to get work in any other capacity. Ho denied that _he had suffered from alcoholic delirium while in the Hospital. Dr Diamond said that in June Davies saw him. He advised passive movement and massage. Two days ago Davies had seen'him a sain, and he condition of the hand and arm was accentuated. The arm was wasted, and there were indications of nerve .trouble- He thought that there was a neurotic element in the trouble. The men was not malingering. He could not voluntarily move the thumb, but it could be moved freely under an anesthetic. The trouble could bo successfullv treated. The conditions were compatible with neurasthenia following oil cellnlities. , . Dr C. H. Nedwill. Dr M. Louisson and Dr D. L. Sinclair gave evidence stating that the contraction of the itinmb was due to neurasthenia. If he had und"- medical treat-r-«nt the claimant would have retained full use of his thumb, and his condition could still be ereatly improved. .; ■' (Proceeding.)