ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 December 1931, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT

SITTING AT HOKITIKA. COMPENSATION FOR PLAINTIFFS. The. sitting of the Arbitration Court at Hokitika yesterday concluded in the lat*e ' afternoon, the Court finding in ' favour of both plaintiffs ACCIDENT AT KOITERANGI. Continuing his evidence Mr Twyneham said that Madsen earned £137 7s during the whole period which averaged £3 2s . Id, but the mj]] at 'times was not working. Hardly one week's wage agreed - wii/i another week. O'he best six months’ ; wages were taken into account, and tne average was £3 16s a week.. . v William Jamieson,' manager of the defendant Company said it was not always possible to employ plaintiff for a r full week. M r Murdoch, counsel for plaintiff:

He was at all times available for work,

and! would get a full week if offering? i. —Yes. He was ailso a good worker. (

; Mr Murdoch: You take no exception | to the men taking outside work?—No, *' we encourage it. We kept the job open, <. but 'had to fill it as plaintiff was incapacitated.' - - ■ f The Court granted compensation in favour-of plaintiff, the total judgment ; being. £466 5s 9d, less amounts already ,! paid £53 16s lOd. First aid fees, costs, and' witness and medical exp-nses were allowed. <

INJURY AT SAWMILL

Mr Brosnan, upon resumption after a the adjournment, • held the floor for over an hour 'quoting a series of authorities dealing with 1 that which constituted a normal' basis of earnings. The normal webk, as stated in this- case, was 48 hours, and he was entitled to ask the Court to accept this as the basis. There was also the question of whether the . .periods of .work were separate or not, IBDe-contended that as plaintiff had been -given notice prior to the closing of the mill, and further as he ■ was at liberty to 'accept another position, that there w%s' a new term of employment. -.■'-Mr Tracy contended that continuity of' employment was implied in that plaintiff . received all work available. There was not, a definite break, but merely a suspension in the arrangements employee and master. ■The Court found that the. degree 61 incapacity was admitted.- There was no difficulty on tjiat part. Where the difficjijlty"arose was,in the denning of the normal week, .whether- to take the whole year, .or the last-period in June. The ■Court could not. find for continuity of employment, and it would therefore take it on .tho Vast period.. With regiaTd to 'the. question of th’3 normal ithe Court’s .remarks would apply ortly <to .fbe.case in ouestibn. The_ normal wftflk" in the" timber trade was 48. Imofs. i 'ln Junej five days wars worked iii the'first week, and six days in the other During this period the fiill normal .yeek was worked and as snc)i--tva? .recognised. The rate of wages Was 17s 6d for the first fortnight and afis ;6d; thereafter. 'Plaintiff was entitled to-the full T Age -which would mean £3 fis a - \veek from date of., accident for 7$ Weeks,. and for further' compensation at the rate of 5f per cent, of full compensation for the .remainder .of the 'period of liability, credit to be given for amounts already paid, medical fee £l,‘ witnesses’ expenses £2 2s, costs £lO 10s. v •