Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

DEFINITION OF "WORKER "

COMPENSATION CLAIM AGAINST A FARMER, The judgment of the Arbitration Court in a compensation case given,recently is of general interest, and deals more particularly with the relations of farmers and their employees.

Elizabeth Cameron, widow of Duncan Cameron, late of Onuka, sued James Gear, of Wellington, sheepfarmer, -for compensation for the death of her husband, who was a working station manager employed by defendant. The Court, in its judgment, said .that the deceased Duncan Cameron was in the employ of the defendant and on October 31, 1916, mot with an accident, which admittedly arose out of and in the course df his employment. The action was brought by the widow and her children for the recovery of compensation under the Workers' Compensation Acts, and the otily question for tho decision of the Court was whether or not the deceased was a "worker'-' within the meaning of these Acts. The term "worker" as defined in the principal Act and the amendments of 1911 means "any person who has entered or. works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer,' whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, and whether the remuneration be wages, salary, or otherwise, but does not include any person employed otherwise than by way oi' manual labour whose remuneration exceeds £260 a year." The wages of the deceased at the time of his death exceeded £260 a year, and the question to be determined, therefore, was whether he was employed -otherwise than by way of manual labour. He manager of defendant's run at Onuka, and the evidence showed that he was correctly designated "working manager." "In the present case we have/ no doubt," says the judgment, "that the manual labour performed by deceased was so performed under and in pursuance of his contract of employment, that it was a real and substantial part of his employment, and that it was not merely incidental or necessary to his duties as manager-of the run, and that it formed a substantial element in determining the remuneration he received. We hold, therefore, that deceased was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Acts, and plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation in pursuance of those Acts." Judgment was given for plaintiff for £500, together with, •funeral expenses and c,osts. The case was heard at Napier, when Mr. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. P. J. O'Regan for the defendant.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19181012.2.89

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 15, 12 October 1918, Page 10

Word count
Tapeke kupu
407

DEFINITION OF "WORKER " Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 15, 12 October 1918, Page 10

DEFINITION OF "WORKER " Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 15, 12 October 1918, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert