ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 5 June 1931, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

GREYMOIITH SITTING. The Greymouth sessions of th e Arbitration Court opened yesterday, His Honour, Mr Justice Fraser, presiding and with him were, Mr A. L. Monteith (Workers’ Representative), and Mr W. Cecil Prime' (Employers’ Representative). apprenticeship order AMENDED. On behalf of the Westland Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Apprenticeship Committee, Mr F. G. Davies asked for an amendment of the Westland Carpenters’ and Joiners’ Apprenticeship (Order, dated June 30, 1927, as follows: That the order be amended by deleting the latter portion of the 2nd paragraph of Clause 6 (a), viz: "For the purpose of determining the number of journeymen in taking on a new apprentice, each apprentice who has completed three years of his apprenticeship shall be counted as a journeyman,” and substituting the following:—"For the purpose of determining the number of journeymen iu taking on a new apprentice each -apprentice who has completed 4i- yeais of his apprenticeship shall be counted ns a journeyman. Mr Davies in furtherance of the application said that it was brought as a result of a tradesman applying for permission to employ an apprentice, when, he already had two other Apprentices employed. It was the unanimous wish of the Committee that the Award be amended. His Honour siaid the order, would be amended in accordance with the toims of the recommendation and would take effect from date. £650 CLAIM SETTLED. Judgment by consent was entered in the claim, Harold Leslie Jones (Hokitika), v. John Arthur and Rog e ' - Pritchard Davies, trading as Davies Bros, brewed, Hokitika. No defence was filed.

Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr P. J. O’Regan of Wellington, in his claim stated that on Thursday, November 18th, 1926, lie whs working in defendants’ br e wery at Hokitika when he met with an accident which abraded his left' ankle-, after which blood poisoning set in J seriously, which caused a permanent disability, and it had shortened his leg, with the result that his capacity to earn wages was permanently reduced. His average weekly earnings, calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act were not less than £l. The sum of £129 18s Id had been received as compensation,, and lind it not been for the injuries received, plaintiff would have been able to earn, not less than £5 10s after lie was 21 years of age. He claimed £3 L'°m the date of^the ■accident to the trial and with further compensation in a lump sum a.s may be considered reasonable. ■Defendants, in a letter agreeing to judgment by consent in full settlement, offered £560 4s 8d in addition to ' compensation previously paid, amounting to £129 9s Id, in addition to counsel’s fee £lO 10s. Judgment by consent was accordingly entered ' and plaintiff’s counsel applied to have the money paid to the Public Trustee.

MINER’S CLAIM SUCCEEDSPeter Thompson, Brunner ton, For whom Mr P. 'J. o’Reg a n appeared, claimed compensation from the Brunner Collieries Ltd., as the result of being struck in the left eve, while working at the Company’s mine on Friday. July 11th, 1930, by a fragment of eOnl or other deleterious material which totally disabled him from working until September 2nd, 1930. It was submitted that it also meant a serious impairment of vision, of the left eye. whereby his capacity to earn wages had bee n permanently reduced. The statement for the defence was tlmt the Company had paid the plaintiff £4l 12b on account- of compensation genera My. The Company denied the plaintiff Is submission, and claimed thjat, siru.ee Resuming work, plaintiff if be bad so chosen, could have earned as much as prior to tlie accident, nnd further compensation was not due to plaintiff. His Honour staid that be and bis colleagues bad fully considered the claim. The case was one of a kind, be stated, that bad frequently been presented. With the ' sight, an injury affected a man’s earning in one occupation, but might not do so in another. Work at a coal face was dangerous for a man whose eyes had been

seriously affected, but he might, however, be fit to do other work: Though he might be perfectly fit for shift work, lie might not be fit to ‘work on the coal. They had considered the whole question.. Two mine managers agreed.it was an exceptional case, and they would not advise that a man with defective eyes should work on the coal. They a ma n with a defective eye to work on the coal, but would not advise him to do so. In tlie North Island men with defective eyes were not allowed to work in the mines in the interests of safety. Tf claimant were to lose his good eye it might be regarded as a total loss. Thompson had had throe accidents in three months. Hr O’Brien (Christchurch), and Dr Wilkinson had cei’tiffied as to the state- of the eye, the latter recommending that the claimant should take on shift work. They had come to the conclusion that it was not safe in the man’s own interests, that he should work at the face, and not in the commercial interests of j the Company, prom the fact that the.

direct vision was impaired, claimanthad reason to consider himself unfit to work at a coal face. Claimant was entitled to succeed, and compensation would he therefore granted. The basis would he a comparison between his former earning on the coal of £7 3s 10d per week and his present rate as a shiftman of £5 11s per week, making the basis £1 Is 5d weekly. As £42 12s Id had already been paid as for total disablement for eight weeks, the total thus made' for the 30 weeks, commuted according to schedule, less the /amount paid, was £283 Ss 3d. Counsel’s fee £lO 10s. and witnesses’ expenses on the Magistrate's Court scale were allowed. The sum of £1 Is was also allowed for Dr O’Brien’s certificate.