ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1831, 18 August 1913, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

RESERVED DECISIONS UNSATISFACTORY EVIDENCE. ' Judgment was given by his Honour Mr. Justice Sim in the Arbitration Court on Saturday, in the claim for compensation for accident by Charles Francis (Mr. Inlics) against Neil Paulsen (Mr. Cooke). The plainti'c was employed ,by defendant as a stud groom, and alleged tliat he was injured on November 2G by a kick from a horse, being incapacitated for eleven weeks. Plaintiff continued at work till December H, when ho was advised to go to the hospital. His Honour said that he was not satisfied the plaintiff suffered any injury such as ho alleged. 110 gave his evidence in a vory unsitisfaatwy manner, and if his stoi'y had been true, the defendant's son and another man (Hooker) could have been called to corroborate it, but neither was called, nor was any medical evidence given to prove that the illness for which the plaintiif was treated in tha 'hospital could be reasonably ascribed to ail injury such as ho alleged. Plaintiff had failed to prove his case, and judgment would be for defendant witli costs. AN ALLEGED LOCK-OUT. His Honour also delivered judgment in the case of P. A. M'Hardy (Mr. Lusk) v.. John Jackson, Inspector of Awards, thi3 being an appeal fwm the decision of the magistrate at Napier in an action brought to recover a penilty in respect to an alleged lock-out. In November last shearing operations were being carried on at the appellant's station at Aiamoana, and on November 2G the shearers refused to shear certain sheep, because they were wet. They persisted in this refusal after being allowed certain time for consideration, and the manager thereupon dismissed i'liem all. The magistrate held that this amounted to a. lock-out, within the meaning of the Act, and gave judgment for J!2sas a penalty.. His Ho/iout, after reviewing _ the facts as found by tho magistrate, said lie was unable to discover any element of a lockout. It was simply tie case of an employer dismissing men who had broken their contract of service. Ho did not susI pend or discontinue any branch of tho business, nor was there anything in the

I evidence to suggest that flie •dismissal was | a pretence for the purpose of inducing ' them to go on "with tho shearing. He held that there was no lock-out, and upheld ■ the appeal. The decision left open the ; question as to' whether tho dismissal -air.minted to a breach of contract with tho shearers. NEW AWARD DESIKED. Mr. Justice Sim also delivered judgment in the matter of an industrial dispute ! between George Danes, Ltd., and the .Wellington Tailoresses' and Pressers i Industrial Union of Workers. • In adjourning the application for an '.award, his Honour' .said'that applicant was bound by the provisions of an award 'made in 1910, the terms of which expired on January 9 last. Tho object of the present application was to have, a new award made on the same terms, with the omission of the provision contained in Clause 10 (c), to the effect that the registered workroom of the employer in which bespoke work was to bb done must be. within the district covered by the award. The terms ,the award were agreed on by the parties,-an<t the attention of the Court was not called to that particular provision, but attention was called to it in the. recommendations m the subsequent cases in- Westland and Nelson, and it was not inserted in the awards made in those cases. It would not be proper for the Court to rofjke a new award without liayjng before it tne other employers/.who were parties to the existing award. There was no reason, however, why tho Court should not express its opinion as to the provision in question. "It appears to us, said his Honour, "that it is one which the Court has not jurisdiction .to iusert in any award. The question whether an employer's registored, workroom was to bo within or without this .territory covered by an award doe 3 not come within, the dehnition of 'industrial matters', contained in the Industrial Conciliation a.nd : Arbitration Act 1908. If it does -not come within that definition, then the Court has no 'jurisdiction to deal with it. His Honour added that tho position, therefore, was that the award ought to read as if the words, "within the district covered bv this award." had been struck out. of Clause 10 (c), and that judgment might be treated as an authority for reading it in that -way." If the applicant desired to obtain "a new award, the other emplojers must be added as parties to the dispute, and the present application would be adjouriied to enable that, to bo done^