OMAKA DISASTER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 205, 25 May 1921, Page 6

OMAKA DISASTER

COMPENSATION CLAIMS SETTLED

DECISION OF ARBITRATION

COURT

NO AWARD FOR CAPTAIN’S WIDOW

Judgment has been delivered by tho Court of Arbitration in respect of several claims for compensation brought against Charles Alexander Eckford and George Sugden Eckford, of Blenheim, merchants, and owners of the auxiliary schooner Omaka (which was wrecked off Pencarrow), by dependants of members of the crew. With the exception of the claim made by the widow of the ship’s master, the late Captain A. E. Hunter Purvis, none of the claims was refused,

The Captain’s Position. In refusing the application of Captain Purvis's widow, Edna Blanche Purvis, the Court took into consideration that his salary was .£420 per annum. Tho judgment adds: "It is not questioned that his death was due to an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and the Court is asked to decide whether he was a worke.r employed by way of manual labour, so as to bring him within the definition of a worker as set out in section 2 of the Workers’ Compensation for Accidents Act, 1908, as amended by the Act of 1911. The evidence proved that, the deceased was employed to command and navigate the schooner, which was usual-

ly engaged in the Wellington-Blenheim trade. It is customary for the masters of vessels engaged in that trade to take the helm while navigating the Wairau River and entering and leaving Port Nicholson. The navigation of the Wairau River is intricate, by reason of the numerous bends and mud-banks that it is necessary to negotiate, and for that reason the master -usually takes the wheel until his vessel is berthed at Blenheim or has crossed the bar outwards.

In navigating Wellington Harbour a member of the crew may be permitted to take the wheel during daylight in fine weather, except when the vessel is approaching or leaving the wharves. Schooners of the class of the Omaka carry small crews, and it is convenient, if not necessary, for the master to take the wheel while the sails are being set, reefed, or furled. It was stated that

Captain Purvis on occasion assisted the crew to set or reef the sails, but tho evidence shows that this was a matter of choice on his part, as he could have taken the wheel, and set the steersman free to attend to the sails. It was contended for the plaintiff that the duties performed by the deceased were such ns to bring the present case within the decisions in Leafborg v. the Public Trustee (1921, N.Z.L.R., 292), and Cameron v. Gear (1918 G.L.R., 662). In those cases it was proved that the employment of the workers was of a composite na-

ture. in that each had to perforin duties separate and distinct from those of superintendence and control. ■ The test to be applied in the present case is whether the deceased was employed primarily to navigate and command the Omaka, and whether any manual labour perform, ed by him was of a substantive nature, and not merely accessory and incidental to the exercise of his skill and knowledge as q master-mariner. "We have come to the conclusion that there was no composite employment in this case, and that the manual labour of steering the vessel was accessory or inci-

Ullu TLOOLI IT uCLUa'vIJ U 1 Jllltoldental to tho duty of navigation and the exercise of deceased’s skill as a navigator. In the absence of definite proof of a composite employment, the decision in re Dairymen’s Foremen and Tailors’ Cutters (28 T.L.R. 587) applies. That decision affects shipmasters, for, as Chapman. J., said in the case of the Shipmasters’ Association of N.Z. v. the Wellington Harbour Board (90 L.R. 270), the real question is 'What is the real and dominant nature and purpose of the employment? ’ We do not think that a shipmaster is really primarily employed to do either manual or clerical work, but to command and navigate ships So dominant are the factors, skill, and command, that the merely manual or clerical work goes out of sight.’ Judgment will be entered for the defendants, and leave reserved to them to apply for costs." Position of Engineer. The claim for compensation brought by the widow of tho late engineer of ths schooner (Clara M. K. Weekes), on behalf of herself and her son, was opposed by the defendants on grounds similar to those in tho case of the captain’s widow. However, the sum of .£5OO compensation was allowed. In the course of its judgment. the Court stated:—“lt is necessary that tho Court should be satisfied that the deceased's employment was by way of manual labour. He was signed on as engineer of the Omaka, but his duties did not involve any factor of superintendence or control. In addition to running the engine, he had to fill the oil tank, which involved tho carrying of a considerable quantity of gasoline along the deck, and he also had to effect all running repairs and cleaning, and generally perform a mechanic’s duties. His work cannot be classed as being of a highly skilled nature, and we think that, taking a broad view of the employment as a wuole. it may properly be regarded as being by way of manual labour. In Smith v. Associated Omnibus Company (1907, 1 K.B. 91.6) it was held that the driver of a motor omnibus, who had, when out with the omnibus, to do such necessary repairs to it as he was able to do. was engaged in manual labour. Tho facts in the present case are, we Flunk, similar to those in the case cited rather than to those in re Dairymen’s Foremen and Tailors’ Cutters (28 T.L.R. ■’97): and we hold, op those facts, that ■.io manual labour performed by the deceased was not merely incidental or accessory to, but was the real substantial work for which ho was engaged. His work was really that of an engine-driver rather than that of a, marine engineer in the ordinary sense.”

Tn addition to compensation £l2 12s. costs, and £2B funeral expenses were allowed. also expenses and disbursements. Tho amount of the judgment was ordered to be paid to the Public Trustee, pending an order for its apportionment and disposal. Other Cases. The sum of .£3OO compensation, with -CIO 10s. costa, was allowed Alice May Marlow, mother of William Marlow, a member of the crew. Caroline Forrest Cooper, mother of Harold Percy Alfred Stapleton, able seaman, was awarded £l5O compensation, and costs’, etc.