ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Issue 14828, 20 November 1913, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES. COMPENSATION AXD APPEAL CASES. The Christchurch sittings of the Arbitration Court were continued yesterday, Mr Justice Sim presiding, and with him Mr W. Scott (employers assessor), and Mr J. A. McCullough (Unions' assessor). JEFFERY r. KJDD. Benjamin Jeffery (Mr Acland) claimed from Joseph Haycock .budd 'Mr Hunter), compensation as tne result of injuries received. The facts, which were were that on September <th. ly-i-. plaintiff was working on a job for tne defendant, but did not receive his •vas.es on the job at i-' o'clock, instead, plaintiff had t-o bicycle to defendant's shop, and, while on his way home, after receiving his wages, a collision occurred with a baker's cart. Mr Hunter submitted that the latest moment the employer's liability existed was when plaintiff received his wages and left defendant's office. w-s. also bound to take notice ot the point that five months elapsed between the accident and the notification to tho employer, and that notice was, therefore, given too late. Dr. Walter Thomas stated that plaintiff's injuries were such that his labour was not at present worth 10s a week. His condition might improve, but he doubted whether he would l>e able to do continuous work at his trade.

Mr Acland contended that it was just -is much part of plaintiff's contract to go and get tho money, as it was to return with* it. The accident, he submitted, had clearly .arisen out of and in the course of. employment. His Honour said tho Court would consider the matter. SCOTT BROS. v. INSPECTOR OF AWARDS. In the case, an appeal, Scott Bros. (Mr Wright) v. Inspector of Awards (Mr Raymond, K.C., with him Mr A. Donnelly), tlie point in dispute was whether a large body of workers camo under tlie rangcmaker.v award, or under the tinsmiths' and metal-workers awards. , After hearing lengthy argument, the Court reserved its decision. 3IILLEKS' DISPUTE.

The matter of increased wages was tho only point in dispute in the case Canterbury United Millers, Engino Drivers, and Mill Employees' Union of Workers (Mr Flood) v" "Wood Bros, and others (Mr Cooper). Evidence was given by George Christmas and by Edward Hanson, the former receiving ls Id per hour as smutterman, and the latter Is an hour us packennan. Hanson stated that lie had since secured better pay on a grass-seeding machine. Mr Cooper said he admitted that tho men were entitled to a higher wage, but the industry was one in which there was great competition, and it was not fair that the Canterbury employers should pay a wage much in excess of that tho millers in other parts wero paying. His Honour urged the union's representative to endeavour to federate the Auckland, Dunedin, and Christchurch Unions, and to secure tho formation of a Union in "Wellington. A Dominion award could then he obtained at the next sitting of the Court, although it would not come into effect for a year, wheiythe Auckland award expired. Tho dispute would, in the meanwhile, be adjourned. MOTOR .DRIVERS' DISPUTE. In the case, Canterbury Motor-Car, Horse Drivers, and Livery Stablo Employees' Industrial Union of Workers (Mr H. Hunter) v. T. Armstrong, Ltd., and others (Mr F. Cooper), the Union asked for a minimum wage of £3 a week, casual drivers ls Cd per hour, overtime rates in proportion, and a week of 45 hours. Evidence having been taken, his Honour stated that the Court would consider the matter. The Court then adjourned until today.