ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2120, 1 July 1907, Page 1

ARBITRATION COURT.

Press Association. WELLINGTON, Saturday. A general meeting of employers, held last night, massed the iallowing resolution: “That this meeting of' employers of' labor records its_ appreciation of .‘ .the.- clear and satisfactory statement: made by His Honor Mr. Justice Sim at Nauier as to the attitude of the, Arbitration -Court regarding the, question of profitsharing; that;, this meeting also expresses its regret at some recent decisions of, the-Arbitration Court, in which it has ignored previous . wellestablished/precedents, especially in with the Westport and Gisborne breach-of awards cases, and with reference Ab the ‘ interpretation in connection with the Otago felt hatters and Wellington typographical awards, and .that those matters he referred to the Advisory Board of the New Zealand Employers’ Federation for its consideration.

Mr. Justice Button had a ease bo-fore.-hiin ivliich, bo said, was tlio first, of .its-'nature brought before the Su-preme-Court—Ain arbitration case for compensation,' in which the Maiiawatu Railway Company were concerned. Their assessor was objected -to as being a shareholder and imbued with personal animus against the other, side. The Judge decided that, liis interest in the Compan - was so small as not likely to affect him, but lie bad been concerned in a lawsuit which probably excited some feeling and therefore lie should not sit as assessor. ,•

Two points of interest to employers of labor were decided in a judgment delivered by the Arbitration Court to-day on a claim for compensation by Robert Russell against tlio New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency. Coy. Ik -was urged by the 'defence that-a claim for compensation, had not been made within three months after the occurrence of the accident, and that claimant was bound by a. settlement for which he gave receipts. Mr. Justice Sim in liis judgment-agreed -that the claim -was made too late,-but he ruled that the circumstances of the case debarred respondents from'raising this defence by reason of-tlic fact that before the statutory time for making a claim had. expired the parties had agreed that there was a statutory liabilit-v on respondent to pay compensation. Two payment's were made to claimant -before the statutory three months bail ola-sed. With regard to tint second defence, the Court was not satisfied that claimants knew the effect of the documents lie signed. Claimants ( to accordingly . allowed- £1 .per week from, November ,13 last. ■' ■ -