ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 928, 22 September 1910, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

BIG LIST OF.BUSINESS/.. SHEARERS' DISPUTE TO-DAY. The Arbitration. Court, . consisting of .Mr./ Justic- Sim- (president), Mr.' Wacott (employers' representative), and Sir. J. A. M'Cullough (workers' representative), opened its Wellington/sittings in the Supreme Court buildings yesterday morning. .-...- PARTIES ADDED. . The Court directed that the- Empire Boxmaking -. Company, Ltd.,' Wellington, should be added as a. party to the Bookbinders' Award, the Dominion Shoe. Company- to. the Bootmakers' (male and male) Awards, and eight city hotelkeepers to the Cooks' and Waiters' Award, it being stated that they had gone into business since the award, was issued. ■,;; '"HEARING OF APPEALS.' - : - I The- Court fixed .10 o'clock -this morning for; the hearing of appeals from magistrates' decisions in . two cases - in which the Seamen's Union- proceeded' against, the..Union' Company,., and -one against .Richardson' and Co., Napier. •r : .. THE ENGINEERS' DISPUTE. . /' 1 'Mr. .W. G. Di Evans, on" behalf of the Wellington branch, of. the Amalgamated' Society'of Engineer's, mentioned that a partial/settlement: had .''been ."arrival/ at"-! by, the-assessors'in''the dispute with .the, employers.-The. case, however, was rather';-! peculiar, and-an.attempt was being made to Jiave a 'Dominion', award..- The- asses--sors'of;the'Conciliation Council had had, meetings with the parties at/Auckland,-! .'.Vellington,' -and Christchvirch, •' but the 7 ' questions of wages,..limitation, and preference; .stißi remained'unsettled.' "• The president: Has not' an agreement; been arrived at in .Canterbury? .■-■■' .' : Mr. Evans: I do,not know, whether \ it' is more'/than\a ; recommendation from the; Council 'to'thV: Court. ''/ " - ■;..'; / :The .president:; Why can ,you .not .take, that here? ,'■''.. /•':'/ f :; ;/>/ - /; M. /.Mr. Evans:/.We are/quite' willing,, if! the employers-:will do-so. '. . .;'/'--/ : "Mr. H.;. (for! tbe-iemployers)':'. We!: are .opposed 1 to .a.Dominion .award.-; The conditions;are. f quite different here/" /'The President:- The .question is whether, you'.should-:not :hav6',thb same award as in iCa'iiterb'ury.."/ •'•'/, '-'./"/" |/;Mr. -Allen: I .understand,that the- employees., in, Chrisfchurch, have agreed . to preference '..-/.under ',- some, -, misconception.' .Marine!; engineers : are not: -members ...of the' .unidiij' and ■- when they come, ashore they, are- .able! to take •'■ employment,-, but, if we' have,.tp give preference, it is.mani-' ;fest that we. .will .have, : to, pass these I /men/by./Thevarc the very-men we want,! io.; employ. ."'■' The' existing award ■; has'/ no: .preference, .and, vye have: been/going, along.! ivery' well.-without 'preference.- I' ■'.'■• i '-. Mr.-W-' Pryov, ohibelialf''of ihg : Companies, observed that ; Mr. Evans-i and'; Mr....W..G.' I/odde'r, superintending engineer'-of tlio-Geaf'Con t ipaiiy ) .ha(l ) agree.d : to'",- confer'. arid"draw up - an',.exemption': clause-for.- the.; freezing companies,:';. It" iiad,'also- been/agreed;.that ; . the Hawite's; Bay Preezihg;.Company,should be. struck! ;off the iist .of parties./ '."'.:■■'>"■ ! ;! The /Court • annouriced'' that' the •'• hearihgof .the;-dispute 7 would follow -the shearers' 'dispute, which has been-.fixed for this 'afternoon.'':'-)'.-''::'"-•..':,':'■'■ /- - .; :; :<

;';Considerable interest centred in .the, dis-! 'jrate ' between:/"the ./Canterbury: '.Sheep-/ ■ owners' Union'arid"the Canterbury;Shear.!rs',XTThion; ..'v/:;- : -r:^n/' : .i: ■;'.■ ' : :.t ■ '•„•>; : L Mr; ; 'W:Pryor appeared; for .the sheep-j; /owners} hnd : Mr. 'Laracy, of : Christohnrcb,,': 'secretary of the'union,'for t]ie. shearers, -v ','v Sir.. Pryor'informed the'.'.Court' that) .the"; ;pmplovers.'had<.b'een (Under, the •impression': /that, the .Court was/ to sit oh/September. '/22,;.anc| /arrangements had,.been made ac-'cordingly-.'.'X:ln .addition. * certain', negotia-; tions were, still proceeding, 1 :/::, ■■ :■; y> ; ■';■■ :•.In/reply .to,: tho; President;., Mr. Pryor; paid, tliatp?thero. /werej threo./Wellington; /Shearers'/disputes,; but. as -they/'depended; on one'another,.it would!be(quite,.prac-? 'ticable.'that i;they Vshould,. a11,,.be heard; ■at/.the- same -'time'. '■'''.'■ ' ~.'r V vv,/," ',*..'/■'•■ , -The/'Prosident: Is .tfierb/m'Uch /evidence/ to/be {called in connection/ with' .theso? /. ; : Mr./Pryor': .We - will' notj'have ■ much/ evidence/: here.: //■,,:. . •'■ '..The.President: Do you propose'/to; calf /evidence . in, the other ' centresTrNapier,'" Palmerston/' North, and\ Wanganui?;: ',1 ... -Mr. t Pryor:;. Yes, your . Honour./' .:'/,":;'■■ ;."It- was.aVraed .that all ofj.the shearers', disputes "should. come, on for .hearing/'.attwo o'clock V.this. afternoon.;,?;£', L / '://'//"/;''

'//Elizabeth"Jones,, widowi:ofr:.a 'labourer, -.who "met/with .his;death,'at-the Mirani'ar, joutting !i o'ni Jiine IG. a' claim :against .'.Sanders. Brothers, contractors, !fof,.-.tho:ioss'.of, her husband.' Compensation/to/the.-, .amount'- of ,i£soo ,'had. been agreed, upon,., but.a. point had arisen :,m. regard- to /the .identity of. the .claimant. - :/:.:Mr;-.'/P. : .:'J. O'Regan :.appeared- for :the claimahti.rand; Mr. :A., A.j.5.,; Mehtcath for -.Sanders /Brothers..- .: :.V- v; '. .- '.', V ;/ Mr. O'Regan.informed '..the.Court that /the deceased.-had married'./claimant at Waitakaiiri, in .the Auckland Province, in-1899, and they had three children. The, mart's. average' Weekly: earnings amounted to;i£3 ss. He had been knowh.:generally/ as James * Phillips., '. His. mother had ..married.;twice,- and :he, w'ns; a child iof the ffirst,'- marriage, but had. adopted the name of his;stepfather.. ;The-sunv of .£IOO had'already! beenpaid by the defendants, : and; the /claim '•■ was made for the balance, ,together.::/with ~ £& ; '7s. , funeral 'and medical '. ,/ ;/ : J '■■'■' ;:.,/. .'-;■'Mr./Menteath concurred that there.was ho' dispute as/to the amount,'and :that the ; :only-reason for -the-,matter, coming before, the Court.was in ; regard to the change of name. -Air communications had taken! place''under- the name, of Phillips,! .and;the i .iiidemniners were.naturally surprised ' to! -find at the' last moment that the/claimant's real name was Jones. They desired that the.; Court should bo; satisfied .' that';': the ■ proper claimant.: was before it, so .-that they, might ''not 'be called'; upon.- to -pay' tho /money:' again. • . 'Mr. O'Regan pointed out:that,another reason existed why the indemhifiers' asked for :au award of:.the.Court. It -would mean/ protection ■ against -. any.: further claims that' might arise. \-'- ■-'■■' The-Court gave.judgment,for SA\% 75., and!directed that the amount should be paid-into the hands of the Public Trustee for the maintenance and. benefit of the .widow" and' children.' :

' ' EALL .FROM-BAKER'S CART. : A! fall, from ' a baker's, cart :-'was the groundwork of a claim for; compensation preferred.by William Yarlett, the driver,• against 'his employers, -John Reid'' and Frederick Prederico, of-.•Wellington.'.' ; • Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for /the claimant,' and Mr. E. S. Grundy for -the employers.; • ' '; "; !'•;-. 'It appeared that Yarlett had been employed ; at' a wage of Bs.' per _ week,, and oh March 24 last, while driving onj his/usual round/the harness broke, and the -horse, running clear of the cart, Yarlett was thrown '.. heavily .to ' the ground. He sustained severe spinal injury, resulting in the partial paralysis of his lower limbs.' ' ' , '.Mr. O'Regan said that: there was absolutely no hopo of. claimant's recovery, and-the indemnifiers had accepted, the certificate of Dr. Bowerbank as final. Ho was a sober man and had a wife and threo children. A little while ago the amount of .£303 lis. compensation had been agreed' upon, and several weekly payments had already been made. • Tho Court was asked to order payment of the, balance due.in a lump sum. Judgment was accordingly' entered for claimant for .£298 15s. 3d., the balancodue under the agreement. Three guineas costs were allowed.

ACCIDENT AT NGAHAURANGA

■George Darling, a singlo. man, 41 years of age, sought compensation in the. form of. a' lump sum from the Wellington Meat Export Company for total incapacity resulting from spinal injury sustained while in the company's employment at Ngahauranga. Mr. A. 11. Emdmarsh appeared hi support of the claim, and Mr. 33. S. Grundy for the Export Company. It was stated that since the accident Darling suffered from epileptic fits, and required someone to take care of him. As he had no relativos in New Zealand he was desirous of going- to his father who was a farmer at Duubo, New. South

Wales, and for this, purpose sought, a lump sum. His' compensation was to bo at the rato of 255. per week for, six years. Payment had already been made for' 75 weeks. Mr. Grundy stated that objection was made on account of the man's inteniporate. habits.' . The- claimant gave' evidence that two months back, while still, .'suffering from tho effects of an epileptic . seizure, • ho went into tho street-not fully clad, and on being brought boforo the Court on a charge of drunkenness, ho was discharged on payment of lfleSical expenses. The Court decided that the'claimant was entitled to a lump sum and directed that he should be paid an amount to be agreed upon between the- parties,, with five guineas costs. PAINTER'S CLAIM.; William Henry Hibbert, who had been in. the employment of the Railway Department as a painter, had a .claim against tho Department for ,£238.1i5. for total loss, of the use. of the right hand sustained through an accident at llakotuku Bridge,, on December 17 last. Por ( tho ; defence'.it .was pleaded that the injury was but partial, and that, the Eailway Department's liability -would be met by the payment'of 33125, '.which' had- been lodged in Court; ; >.'v Mr. Hindmarsh appeared for ; claim- . ant, andrMr. T. Neave (Crown Law.'De-'' partment) for tho Railway Department. . After -hearing - the/evidence-' of ,' Dr., Hardwick Smith (medical superintendent f of the' Wellington; Hospital) on behalf of: '.'• the claimant, and' Dr. Philip James, entile other side, the' Court held that Hibbert had/failed 'to prove, total disable- ': ment and .that he was not.entitled to redover more than, the amount paid into Court which .was regarded as having been. ; estimated, on' a : rcas'onable\ba-sis. No costs , were sought by Mr.'.Neave. '/ ';/ , ; •'■'■ : '■- ■ .: INJURIES ON THE WHARF. : In ithe. case'-of J/J; 'Meikle'v.'ithe New :■ Zealand'-Shipping;: Company, Limited,, be- . 'ingicalled./it 'was announced by/Mr.. Hind- '■ . marsh, 1 on'-behalf'of tho:" claimant, 'that. .. a settlement'had; been 'arrived'"at on the :' . basis of, a' payment, of- \£Bl -IGs,, of- which ; £ii 13si ''had' already- been paid., -/-' ■■■ Plaintiff, had entered ■ a .'claim; for .£376 ' for .total incapacity through the,muscles • oi' his /back becoming strained : whilst working-on'the wharf. .'-'■'■' .'/. ,- Mr, -Myt-rs a'ponared for'; the-.New: .Zea- ■. ■ land Shipping Company.';-: ;':■•; _/_•_; ; /' The:! Cour- adjourned, until -;10 .o'clock /this morning//,:/; ~A, ■ ■:.'■',-.. ■■'!• ■/ .A..;.: