REPLY TO COMMENT

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 192, 12 May 1944, Page 4

REPLY TO COMMENT

Waterfront Commission And Chief Justice A reply to comment by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) on its nonrepresentation in a Supreme Court action in which it jvas cited as defendant’was made bj’ the Waterfront Control Commission yesterday. The statement says its nbn-representation was not due to negligence or any wish to avoid responsibility. There was a doubt as to who was the true employer of waterside workers engaged under the co-operative contracting system. The' interested parties had been negotiating to clarify the legal issues. It was expected that finality would oe reached soon, when a full statement would be made. At the express wish of shipping companies the commission had not disturbed the existing arrangements whereby the companies accepted full responsibility for workers’ compensation insurance and common law claims. It bad obtained letters of indemnity which included the following provision: “That all claims shall be dealt with by the company or its nominee, who shall be entitled to take control of all proceedings arising out of any such claim, and for that purpose to use the name of the commission m defending any such proceedings mid in enforcing any judgment on such pro feedings or pursuing any claim for in demnitv against other persons.” ConsequentJj’ the commission considered it had no responsibility to appear at court.