A TEST CASE
MINER'S COMPENSATION.
(,■ An important judgment in regard to ;a workers' compensation test case was recently delivered by Mr. Justice Strin'ger .in. the Supreme Court at' Auckland. The case was that of James Roberts (Mr. lO'Regan). v. the Taupiri Coal Mines, •Ltd. (Mr. Richmond), The question to Be determined by the Court was as to itae" method to be applied in calculating th« amount of compensation to which ithe plaintiff was entitled. It arose out : of the provision of the AVorkers' Compensation Act, 1918, as to the calculation tif - "average weekly earnings." The first portion of'Section 6 provides that in calculating tho average weekly earnings :ho account is to be taken of any period during which the worker has been abjsent from work. Sub-Section 2 of the section provides that where by reason ;of the terms of the employment it is , impracticable to complete the average weekly earnings in this way the amount .'should be taken to ]>e the average for the ,12 months prior to ; the accident earned a person in the samo grade employed at the same work by the same company. In this case the plaintiff was a coal .miner who had been in the/employment of the defendant company for some years, and whose actual averago weekly earnings were admitted to be Ai 4s. 4d., on •which basis compensation had been'paid to. the plaintiff in respect of the accidental injuries he sustained.
At the heaving evidence was given to the effect that the averago miner did not work'full time, the explanation being that as he was paid by piece work ho exerted himself to a considerable degree for a part of the week, and earned a large wage, but could not continue at the same rate of effort for the rest of the week, and therefore took some days off. For the plaintiff it was contended .that there was nothing in tho Act to deprive such class of worker from the more liberal construction of "average weekly earnings," so that if he earned £i on four days the average earnings without artificial definition should he £f> 10s.
For the defence, it was contended that ; Sub-Section 2 was directly aimed at meet- ; ing the obvious unfairness of forcing an : employer to pay compensation at the maximum rate where workers deliberately abstained from work, because by special exertion they were ablo to earn 'Substantial pay on less than the full number of days. It was urged that this position was different from the case of a man who was prevented from working full time by sickness, weather conditions, or lack of work. It was stated that in many South Island mines the higher rate of compensation was allowed, while the practice in the Auckland district was to pay according to normal earnings • actually earned by the average miner in c'the same grade. The Court agreed with the defence, and i gave judgment against tho plaintiff. "To !-Wd that the sub-section," said the . Judge, "was applicablo to Hie case of ; fl coal miner, who, by tho terms of his I employment, might, by special exertions, i earn large sums of money, although working only three or four days a week, ;. would operate most -unjustly against tho : employer, and we do not think we are • '.tofflid, either on principle or by the dei owed Cases, to arrive at that conclusion."
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19181224.2.74
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 76, 24 December 1918, Page 6
Word count
Tapeke kupu
561A TEST CASE Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 76, 24 December 1918, Page 6
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.