ARBITRATION COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 1973, 6 May 1919, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

CLAIM. FOR COMPENSATION.'

A FOXTON CASE,

A sitting of the Arbitration Court was held in Palmerston North on Friday, before Mr Justice Stringer (President), and Mr J. A, McCullogh (Employees’ Assessor), to hear an action in which William Thomas Sapsford, butcher’s assistant, of Foxton, claimed compensation from his employer, George Thomas Woodroofe, butcher, of Foxton, for injuries sustained in an accident arising out' of and in the course of his employment.

Mr P. J. O’Regan (Wellington) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Ongley (instructed by Mj’ Gilford Moore) for the defendant.

The statement of claim was to the effect that on May 27th the plaintiff, while working for the defendant, struckjhis left hand with a chopper, severing the middle and index fingers. He was totally incapacitated for fifteen weeks, and for (hat period he claimed compensation based on a weekly wage of £3 IDs, and a lump sum equal to til* cash value for suck weekly wages for the full period of liability. Ho also claimed £1 for medical expenses, as allowed by law.

The statement of defence set forth that the average weekly wages of (he plaintiff had been £3 ss, and not £3 10s, as claimed, and, further, that after the date of the accident the plaintiff orally agreed that if the defendant would pay full wages during the period of incapacity instead of half wages, and in addition would pay the doctor’s expenses he (the plaintiff) would make claim. At the time the agreement avus made the plaintiff, it was alleged, said he knew he would be entitled to compensation under (lie Ac I, but would rather have lull wages until ho was able to work again and have the, doctor paid Ilian claim such compensation. In accordance with the said agreement, the defendant paid the plaintiff full, wages for ten weeks, settled the doctor’s account, and in every way carried out his part of the contract. The plaintiff made no complaint as to the validity of the agreement till after the doctor had certified (hat he was fit for light work, and the defendant had requested him to assist in the collection of some small accounts.

The defendant gave evidence in support of his statement as to the agreement entered into between'the parties.

His Honour said the agreement could not be sustained. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation according to a fixed scale, for the injuries sustained, and the law specially forbade a worker entering into any agreement with an employer depriving himself of the full benefits of the Act, except under special conditions. One of the conditions was that in making such an agreement the worker had acted on competent and independent advice. In the present case the plaintiff had not acted upon, or oven received, Such advice. Mr O’Regan said the only advice the plaintiff had received was in the form of a statement made by the secretary of the Union that all ho would he entitled to was £2O. If the plaintiff had agreed as alleged, which was not admitted, it was because he thought it would be more advantageous to him to accept the defendant’s offer than be awarded £2O.

His Honour said Ihe position was that the defendant had not proved a special agreement under the conditions imposed hy the Act, and the court had therefore to enforce the plaintiff’s legal rights. He was sorry (hero had been a misunderstanding, because lie felt quite sure the employer had been trying to do the fair Ihing. ATr O’Regan said lie quile agreed with His Honour, and had nothing whatever to say against the plaintiff, Had the accident been covered by an insurance company the case would never have eomc into, court. His Honour said the only question was the amount of wages on which judgment should be based. The plaintiff churned £3 10s per week, ineluding allowance deducted from’meat supplied, hut the actual wages paid had been £3 ss. The compensation would he based on £3 5s per week, and as the amount already paid would he deducted the defendant’s position would be the same as before. The full compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled came to £lls 19s, and lie had received £3l 10s. That left a balance of £B4 9s, for which judgment would be given with £5 5s costs.