WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 21, 20 October 1920, Page 8

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

AMENDING BILL UNDER DISCUSSION THE DOCTRINE OF COMMON EMPLOYMENT SOME CONCESSIONS TO THE WORKERS The Workers' Compensation 'Amendment Bill was before tho House of representatives last night. The Ministei of Labour (Sir William Hemes) said •that the Bill was an honest attempt to meet 'the wishes of the Labour Party. Most of the provisions of a Bill introduced by one of the Labour members (Mr. Howard) had been embodied in the Government's Bill. He was quite propared to admit that during the wai Labour legislation had not been kept up to date. Tho matter had since been taken in hand, and ho hoped before the end of the session to be ablo to introduce a Shops and Offices Bill and a Factory Bill. The Bill now before the House had been agreed to by the Laboui members, the employees, and the insurance companies, and he felt entitled to ask tho House to accept it without amendment. The solo point on which there had been difference of opinion when the Bill was before tho committee had been the doctrine of "common employ; meat." He had consulted many authorities, and had been assured that tho doctrino had been abolised. It had been replaced by a .£750 maximum amount of compensation, except in case of death. Two cases that had been quota! by Mr Howard were almost unique. The Workers' Compensation Act had been intended to give some protection to both employers and employees, and it undoubtedly had proved of great beiieli'i to tho workers, who had been relieved from the necessitv of proceeding under common law. The maximum compensation payable under the Act was now being increased from .£SOO to .£750. Members should realise that a maximum was necessary in any scheme of compensation, since without a maximum liability it would not be possible for an employer to insure against industrial accidents; The Bill, in any case, was a substantial advance on the old law. and he hoped it would bo accepted by the House in that light. The Bill as drafted had proposed that the amount payable to tho injured worker in respect of medical expenses should be increased from £1 to .£2O. The evidence before the Labour Bills Committee had indicated that this amendment might not be satisfactory, since the doctor's bill would tend always to amount to ,£2O. Dr. Thacker (Chri'schurch East): A lawver might do that, not a doctor. The Minister thought that a doctor might carry the ,£2O-in mind when making up his bill. The committee had left the £1 unaltered, and incrcsaed the proportion of wages payable to tho injured worker from 50 per cent, to 55 per cent. The extra 5 per cent, was intended to prpvide for medical expenses. Not a Living Wage. The Hon. T. M. Wilford (Leader of the Opposition) said that while the Bill was a gocd one it left room for. improvement in certain directions. Ho congratulated the Government on having widenod the definition of "worker," and on having increased the maximum amount payable to dependants in respect of the death of a worker. The proportion of wages allowed to an incapacitated worker was not adequate. seemed to assume that when a man was injured ho and his family could subsist on a fraction of tho living wage normally allowed them. Supposing that the average worker received £i a week in wages, the Act at present provides that the worker laid aside by injury should receive half-wages, or £2 a week, with which to support his wife and family. Tt could not be contended that tho amount of £2 was ' sufficient. Under the provisions of the Bill only £2 is. would be payable; and he suggested that the Government might go well beyond this proposed 55 per cent., and provide that the worker should be paid at least two-thirds of tho amount of his wages. Mr. B. -T. Howard (Christchurch South) thought the situation in the House was well defined by the fact that the Minister was chiefly interested in conserving the interests of the employers. Ho proceedcd'to say that the doctrine of common employment had not been abolished, , and that special consideration was being shown in the law to such employers aa tho shipping companies. Ships like the Moeraki and the Manuku had been registered in England, with . the result that men employed on these boats would not proceed under New Zealand 'aw. Thero was no sentiment in theso matters at all. The claims of the workers were considered entirely on a financial basis, nnd tho interests that were being protected in the Bill were the interests of rich insurance companies. The Labour members would, accept the instalment of reform, but they .would ask tho House to go very much further next year. Mr. W. D. Stewart (Dunedin West) said that he had gone to some little trouble to see if the nosition was as Mr. Howard had stated, and he had found it fo be different. Mr. Howard had asked the House to abolish the doctrine of common employment, and the speaker agreed with the Minister that that doctrine had been abolished. What Mr. Howard apparently desired was the abolition of the limit i laced upon the amount a man might claim if injured through tho negligence of a fellow-servant. This limit had been imposed as a set-off to the abolition of the doctrine in question, so that the employer should have some knowledgo of the extent of his liability. Mr. Howard could claim that the legislation was in an anomalous state. It was not clear why in the case of death due to tho negligence of a fellow-worker tho limitation should not apply, whilo in the case of injuries not causing death it did apply. Industrial Insurance. Mr H. Poland (Ohincniuri) urged tho Minister to realiso that an incapacitated worker could not live on half his normal wage TKe Bill had proposed to increaso tho absurdly inadequate allowanco of .£1 for medical expenses to .£2O, but tho committee had cut out this concession 1 and substituted mi extra 5 per cent, of • wages, or As. a week for the M a week ! man. How conk! an injured worker, ' living on half wages, make -Is. a week ' cover his medical expenses? He would ' move for an increase, but he had no ' hope of carrying it because the majority 1 of the mem'bers of tho Houso were em- ' plovers. Mr. Poland mentioned that only 1 half the money paid by the employers 1 for industrial insurance was returned to ■ the workers in the form of compensation. • The companies in 1917 retained nearly 1 .£IBO,OOO for expenses and profits, while ■ the workers got an approximately equal 1 amount. If the State took over this r business it could greatly increase the r benefits to the workers without any inI creased charge ou industry. Mr W. E. Parry (Auckland Central) 0 believed that the Bill, as drafted, would 0 not benefit all tho peopteit was meant 0 to lienefit, unless certain additional r amendments in the existing law were 0 made. The existing law provided that 0 the compensation payable to the ants of a worker who had died from mt juries should bo 156 limes tho average d weekly earnings of the worker, but that II tho amount should not in any case, ex- '• reed ,£SOO. The Bill proposed merely to « raise the limit from .£SOO to JC7SO. This !"• would benefit tho .dependants of the & man who had been earning JES a week, because in their case tho .£SOO limit, re- )- duced by 'more than .£250 the amount i. that they could havo claimed in the abe Bonce of any limit. But tho .£SOO limit h did not affect the dependants of the man n who had'been getting .C 3 a week; and >f tho raisng of it by .£250 was not going is to do them any good. Ho urged that tho Minister should so increase tho number of weeks over which tho compensation was to bo reckoned as to give the dependants of tho £3 man a benofit proportionate to that which would 1)0 enf joyed undor the Bill by the dependants of tho .£ls man. By applying a somewhat similar line of argument to tho proposed amendment of the section relf lating to tho weekly payment of com- "» pensation for incapacity, Mr. Parry rmt- deavoured to show that in this matter ?e also the man on the lower rate of wage! 10 would be at n disadvantage in comparison with the man on a higher rate.

Mr. J. P. Luke (Wellington North) asked for ft provision to cover the case of the co-operative party that had contracted construct the tlrongorongo tunnel. The City Council should not be responsible for accidents in the cast of this party, which had the status of a contractor. The debute was continued until n late hour. Several members urged that the Government ought to make a State monopoly of industrial insurance. Jlr. Masters (Stratford) mentioned that the cos! of' administering accident insurance in Queensland was U/15 per cent, of tho premiums, and in California 10 per cent. The New Zealand cost was very much larger, and he did not think that thcStale Accident Insurance Office was push ing its business with sufficient energy. Thirty-three companies were handling industrial inlsiwance in New Zealand, and the commission paid to agents Tanged from 15 to 20 per cent., while the overhead charges were very high. Great benefit couid l>e conferred on tho workers without increased cost by making industrinl insurance a State monopoly. Sir William Herrias promised that hi would look into the cmestions raised to Mr. Parry. The House went into Committee on the. Bill ot 0.25 a.m. Mr. Poland moved an amendment providing that the proportion of wages payable during a incapacity shoula ue°6G2-3 P er iiSfeAd. of 55 per cent., as proposed By tho Bill. The amendment was defeated by 30 votes to 25. Several other amendments were proposed, but all were defeated. .Tho Bill was reported from Committee, read the third time, and passed.