THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1882. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY BILL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2559, 21 June 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1882. EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY BILL.

The meeting of the Industrial Association last night, held to discuss tho Eight Honrs and Employers’ Liability Bills, proves, at all events, that the employers of Canterbury as a body are as well aware of, and as willing to be liable to, their responsibilities as might reasonably be expected. With regard to the Eight Hours Bill, we have already given it as c »r opinion that, if it becomes law, it will be found to be of little practical value. In tho first place, the exceptions to those brought under tho provisions of the measure are very numerous. In the second place employers can easily escape from tho tie sought to be imposed upou

them by special arrangement with those whom they employ. The wages of working men will, under the arrangement sought to be introduced, simply bo reduced, with special regulations for overtime. The labor market cannot be regulated by legislation any more than can any other market. The broad law of demand and supply are little likely to be affected in the long run hy a hard and fast rule. The working classes have hitherto shown themselves to be well capable of looking after themselves, and it is useless for the Legislature to imagine that capital will consent to be permanently hampered by such a law. The Employers Liability Bill, however, is a measure of an entirely different color. Its object is to force those employers who are careless cf their workmen to recognise their responsibilities. As Mr. Reese remarked at tha meeting, there is nothing in the Bill that any employer should be afraid of. These who objected to it last night can hardly have studied its provisions. For instance, one employer, as an argument against the measure, wondered how it was possible to know whether or not machinery was defective. “ It. was possible,” he said, “ that such might be the case, and yet not be known to tho employer, as, for instance, with new machinery. He thought it was an uncalled for thing to ask anyone who knew the principles of mechanics to assent to such a Bill as that before the meeting.” Now the Bill specially meets such cases as those suggested by this employer. Under sub-section I. of danse 111. of tho Bill a workman, in case of injury received, or his represeniative in case of his death, shall be entitled to compensation if the said injury or death is caused “ by reason of any defect in the condition of the ways, works, machinery or plant connected with or used in the business of the employer.” But, then, sub-section L of danse IY. particularly says that no compensation can be claimed “ unless the defect arose from, or had not been discovered or remedied owing to, the negligence of the employer, or of some person in the service of the employer and entrusted by bim with the duty of seeing that the ways, works machinery, or plant were in proper condition.” It is evident that these sections quite meet the case of any flaw, which, was impo siho to be discovered beforehand. If the employer is found to have used reasonable precautions for examining the machinery before bringing it into play he is not liable. The whole spirit of the Bill is adverse to saddling the employer with unknown responsibilities. All be has to do is to do his best, either in person or by deputy, to see that the plant be employs is reliable and sound. He is certainly bound by the actions of those whom he employs to superintend his machinery or works, hnt this is ' nothing more than is fair. If an employer finds that his superintendent is not vigilant, the latter should be immediately • dismissed. Tho safety of the workmen i demands this much. So that there is no i hardship in the second sub-section of danse 111, which provides that the ' employer shall be liable when the accident occurs “ by reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has any superintendence entrusted to bim, whilst in the exercise of that superintendence.”

Another case where compensation can bo claimed is when the injury has been occasioned hy ‘‘ reason of the act or omission of any person in the service of tho employer done or made in obedience to the rules or by-laws of the employer, or in obedience to particular instructions given by any person delegated with tho authority of the employer in that behalf.” But here, too, there are exceptions, for no compensation can be claimed unless tho injury resulted from some impropriety or defect in the rules or by-laws themselves. So that in this case the employer is protected if the coda of by-laws he issues is a sound one; and it is surely not too much to expect that every employer shall taka the utmost care in framing these by-laws. Moreover, “ when any rule or by-law has been approved or has been accepted as a proper rule or by-law by the Colonial Secretary or other responsible Minister, it shall not be deemed for the purpose of this Act to be au improper or defective rule or by-law.” And finally the third sub-section of danse IY. contains further valuable provision towards protecting the employer. No man, or, in case of decease, no representative shall be entitled to compensation “ in any case where the workman knew of tha defect or negligence which caused his injury and failed within a reasonable time to give, or cause to be given, information thereof to tha employer, or soma person superior to himself in the service of the employer, unless ha knew that tha employer or such superior already knew of the said defect or negligence.” By this sub-section the recklessness of many workmen whom laziness hinders from properly looking out for themselves is checked.

In point of fact the Act places the employer in the same position to his men as he is to tho public at large, and there seems to he no reason why he should not be. A workman has every right to infer, when he enters into any service, that tho employer is actuated by the dictates of humanity, and has taken all possible precautions against the maiming or death of those under his charge. Tho Bill is an exceedingly careful one, takes a fair view of all possibilities, and endeavours to balance fairly the duties of the master to those under him and of the workman to himself. If any fault is to be found in tho Bill it is in tho amount of compensation that may bo claimed. This shall “ not exceed such sum ns may be found to bo equivalent to the estimated earnings, during the throe years preceding the injury, of a person in tho same grade employed during those years in the like employment and in the district in which the workman is employed at the time of tho injury.” In some eases this would of course be a largo sum, and much will bo left to tho Assessors, to bo appointed under the Act for tho purpose of ascertaining the amount of compensation, to see that excessive damages will not bo granted. However, until it is seen what the outcome of this provision may happen to bo, it is perhaps hardly fair to criticise. Still, ono point may fairly bo alluded to. In case of a widow without children being left behind, if she marries agsin in a short time, and supposing her to have obtained tho full damages that can bo given under the Act, it would fcarcoly he just that for three years she should practically benefit by the money received on behalf of the new husband and tho ono just deceased. This point, and perhaps a few others of a similar nature, have been overlooked, hut perfection cannot be looked for from a Bill that proposes legislation on a subject that has been hitherto untouched by Parliament.*