COMPENSATION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 13 September 1924, Page 5

COMPENSATION.

CLAIM FROM BOROUGH COUNCIL.

AN IMPORTANT POINT.

tBY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASf jOIaTi.ON'

AUCKLAND, Sept. 12. Arising out of an accident at Devonport on April 5, when Jule Emile le Seelle, a member of the Devonport Fire Brigade was killed through being thrown from a motor engine, his widow, Alice Maud le Seelle, at the Arbitration Court to-day, claimed from the Devonport Borough Council compensation and,farther other relief and costs. The statement of claim set out that deceased was a general labourer and deputy-superintendent of the fire brigade at £5 per quarter and additional sains for each fire attended.

Outlining plaintiff’s case, Mr. Ostler said the question was’ whether a member of a fire brigade was a worker under the Workers’ Compensation Act. In no sense could the brigade be termed a volunteer brigade. A provision was made for the payment of salary to the officers, besides extra money for fires, and the officers were subject to a month’s notice of dismissal. . Deceased could only be an independent contractor, a volunteer or* a worker, and as he could not be called either an independent contractor or a volunteer he must be a worker. Counsel added that deceased’s average weekly earnings, apart from the brigade were £4 Bs, but in addition he had the right to sleep at the fire, station, and this he did for nearly twelve years. Plaintiff and her husband had been separated bv mutual consent, and there was no court proceedings or deed of separation. From the date of parting deceased had regularly paid plaintiff £1 a week maintenance. Deceased had also continually paid sums to his children and they would average not less than £1 10s a week.

For the defence, Mr. Prendergast submitted _ that deceased, as a member of the brigade, was not a worker as defined under the Workers Compensation Act. He quoted section 259 of the Municipal Corporations Act, which provides that payments to members of a fire brigade out of municipal funds can be made by way of a gratuity or as the council thinks fit. Counsel 'submitted that a gratuity meant no wages, but something in the nature of a gift or a present. The members of a brigade were, he contended, in the position of volunteers, and the bylaws, although providing for the payment of salary, did not constitute them workers There was also £2OO for which the borough council some years ago insured the members of the brigade. which would be paid. On the question of dependency, counsel submitted that deceased had not paid £1 a w’eek maintenance to his w-ife but maintenance of the younger children since the parties separated. Mr. Ostler submitted that one of the primary meanings of gratuity was payment for services rendered, but payment w’hieh nobody was obliged to make. The court reserved its decision.