WRECK OF PROGRESS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 80, 1 October 1931, Page 14

WRECK OF PROGRESS

FIRST MATE'S DEATH

WIDOW'S CLAIM FAILS

The claim made by Matilda May Lawton, widow, of Wellington, against the Holm Shipping Compauy, Ltd., for \ compensation for the death of her husband, Frank Lawton, who was drowned when the steamer Progress, of which he, was first mate, was wrecked last May, .was. the subject of a reserved judgment delivered in the Arbitration Court to-day. The Court held that the case came within section 2 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1922, which excludes from tho operation of the Act any person employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds £400 per annum. Judgment was accordingly given for the defendant company. The judgment set out that the only question for the determination of the Court was whether the deceased was a worker within the meaning of the Act. His position was of a permanent nature, and. his pay and allowances amounted to over,£4oo per annum. The question therefore arose whether his employment was by way of manual labour in view of the provisions of section 2. ... There was no doubt that the real and substantial duties of the deceased were to navigate the vessel and superintend her working, subject to the direction of tho master.' The sum of the payments for a year for the manual work he did perform was estimated at £19 10s 9d out of a total remuneration of £448 8s 3d. His principal duties were navigation and supervision, and his real and substantial employment was therefore otherwise than by way of manual labour, even though he was on occasion required to perform, and did perform, work that could be properly described as manual labour. A subsidiary question as to tho amount of the deceased's remuneration presented no special difficulty, <the judgment continued. On the authorities it was clear ' that "remuneration" in section 2 meant something different from " average. weekly earnings'' in section 6. "Remuneration" was a wider term than "salary," and included any reward in money, or moneys worth, for services rendered to an employer. If it could be shown that there was a contract of. employment which, unless determined by notice or some extraneous fact, Such as death or the destruction of the subject matter of the contract, would last a year and produce remuneration of over £400, the words of the Act were satisfied. The defendant company had proved that the total remuneration of the,deceased for the year, including value of board and accommodation, and payments for overtime, manual labour, and other matters, would have exceeded £400. Even if allowance were made for the : recent general, reduction of 10 per cent, in rates of remuneration, the dceased's total remuneration would still have exceeded £400. Leave was reserved to the defendant company to apply for costs. ;