M'Cready v Dunlop & Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1900 |
| Date | 16 June 1900 |
| Docket Number | No. 199. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord Kinnear.
Master and ServantWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 and 61 Vict. cap. 37), sec. 7 (2)WorkmanContractorPieceworkMember of squad.
The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, sec. 7, enacts,Workman includes every person who is engaged in an employment to which this Act applies, whether by way of manual labour or otherwise, and whether his agreement is one of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and is expressed or implied, is oral or in writing
A firm of shipbuilders entered into an arrangement with a squad of skilled workmen called platers, under which the latter did certain work in connection with frames, for which they were paid weekly by the hands of their leader a fixed sum per frame. This sum the squad after paying the wages of certain helpers or unskilled workmen employed by them, divided among themselves. The squad were bound to work continuously all the working hours recognised in the yard, and when these were exceeded they were paid a certain sum per hour extra. Their work was done in the yard, and was supervised generally by the foreman of the shipbuilders. The necessary plant and materials were supplied by the shipbuilders. The squad were subject to printed rules and regulations to be observed by the workmen in the employment of the shipbuilders. One of the squad was accidentally killed while at work in the yard.
In a claim by his widow against the shipbuilders for compensation under the Act, held that the deceased was a workman in the employment of the shipbuilders as employers in the sense of the Act.
In an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, in which Mrs Mary Lang M'Culloch or M'Cready claimed compensation from D. J. Dunlop & Company, shipbuilders, Port-Glasgow, in respect of the death of her husband, John M'Cready, the Sheriff-substitute (Begg) awarded compensation, and at the request of Dunlop & Company stated, on 6th October 1899, a case.
The case set forth the following facts:It was admitted that the said John M'Cready, while working as a plater in the defenders' premises, Port-Glasgow, was so severely crushed between a barrow and a punching machine that he died of his injuries next morning. It was also admitted that the defenders' said premises are a shipbuilding yard within the meaning of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, and of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, and that the appellants were the undertakers within the meaning of the latter Act.
M'Cready was, at the time of the accident, one of a squad of four platers styled Qua and Coy.,James Qua being the leading man of the squad. The arrangement to do the work upon which M'Cready was engaged when he met with the accident was made by the said James Qua with the appellants' foreman, Mr James Walker. At the time the arrangement was made M'Cready was not a member of the squad; and it was not until after the work had commenced that he was brought into the yard. James Qua had previously asked (as he was bound to do) the appellants' foreman, Mr Walker, if M'Cready would be allowed into the squad, as the work required four platers; and the foreman having given the necessary consent, M'Cready became one of the squad.
The arrangement referred to was that the squad of platers should mark, punch, set, and screw together frames ready for rivetting, sufficient for the construction of two vessels in the defenders' yard, at 42s. per frame, with extra allowances for double bulkheads and double reverse bars. The squad worked with their own hands, apportioning the work as they thought fit; but they required to engage, and did engage, from twelve to sixteen ordinary labourers, called helpers, to work under them. Each helper was paid by the squad a wage of 7d. per hour with 10 per cent additional. The four members of the squad were bound to work continuously during all the working hours recognised in the defenders' yard, so as to finish the job without delay; and they could dismiss any helper. When the working hours were exceeded, the defenders paid the four members of the squad 6d. per each extra hour, and the helpers half time extra. The leader of the squad received from the defenders once a week the sum due to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Revenue Commissioners v Karshan (Midlands) Ltd T/A Dominos Pizza
... ... as ‘contractors’ ) shall be retained by Karshan (described throughout as ‘the company’ ) as independent contractors within the meaning of and for all purposes of that expression ... Dunlop 2 F.1027 , Gorman v. Gibson & Co. [1910] Sess. Cas. 317 and Bobby v. Crosbie 114 LTR ... ...
-
Logan v Shotts Iron Company
...Co. v. HelpsELR, [1918] A. C. 141, Lord Dunedin, at pp. 1445. 4 6 Edw. VII. cap. 58, sec. 13. 1 (1876) 3 R. 535. 2 (1900) 2 F. 1027. 1 2 F. 1027. ...
-
Hartlepool Seatonia Steamship Company Ltd v Scanlon (No. 2)
...was a workman in the employment of the respondents, and his dependents were entitled to compensation under the Act. M'Cready v. Dunlop,UNK 2 F. 1027, applied. Scanlon v. Hartlepool Seatonia Steamship Company (No. 2). SCANLON and HARTLEPOOL SEATONIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, Limited (No. 2) (1) Hig......