ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14841, 5 December 1913, Page 5

ARBITRATION COURT.

SCOTT BROS. v. INSPECTOR OF AWARDS. Justice Sim gave judgment yesterday in the appeal case Scott Bros.; Ltd. (Mr Wright) y. the Inspector of Awards (Mr Raymond, K.C., and Mr Donnelly). Tlie question was whether the making of ovens, ash-pans, and sheet registers for ranges was governed by the Rangeworkers' Award or by the Tinsmiths' and Sheet-metal Workers' Award. The appellant contended that the workers engaged in this work came under .the head of body fitters and machinists, whose wages are fixed by the rangeworkers' award. The judgment statethat though the work may have: been done by body-fitters or machinists, the work cannot properly be described as that of either a body-fitter or a machinist, and that this is recognised by the industrial agreement made in 1908, to which the appellant is ft party. That agreement fixed a minimum wage for range-fitters and polishers, one for body fitters and grinders and also ono for sheet-iron workers. The magistrate (Mr Bailey) said that the work in question must bo treated as governed by the Tinsmiths' Award. The award was therefore agreed with, and the appeal dismissed with costs £5 ss. JEFFBRY v. KIDD. In the case of Benjamin Jeffory, carpenter (Mr Acland) v. Joseph Haycock Kidd, builder (Mr Hunter), the plaintiff claimed compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him, and subsequent incapacitation for workj caused by his collision with a baker's cart while riding home from work. The ovidence showed that the plaintiff had gone up to the defendant's shop to draw his wages, and was injured on his way to his home, after receiving his wages. Tho court held that if the plaintiff had met with an accident while travelling to the shop, or while there, it would have happened in the course of his employment, and, according to the nature of the accident, might have arisen out of the employment. There was. however, no authority for carrying the employment beyond that point. When the plaintiff received his wages and left his employer's premises his employment ceased for the day, and his accident could nofc be treated as having arisen either out of or in the course of his employment. Judgment was given for the defendant.