Compensation Court For Workers Advised

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1003, 20 June 1930, Page 12

Compensation Court For Workers Advised

COMMISSION’S REPORT COMPULSORY INSURANCE Press Association WELLINGTON, Thursday. Important alterations in the existing law are recommended in the report made available this afternoon by the Minister of Labour, the Hon. S. G. Smith, of the Royal Commission which inquired into the operation of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The principal recommendations are as follow : Cl) The establishment of a separate Workers’ Compensation Court, similar in constitution to the Arbitration Court. (2) Insurance to be compulsory on employers and wage statements to be supported by a statutory declaration. (3) Where a dependant is not a resident of New Zealand the principle of reciprocity to he incorporated in the Act as laid down in Ontario. (4) In the calculation of compensation the principle of providing for dependency to be introduced. (5) An increaes from £3OO to £oOU in the minimum payment in the case of death. (6) In claims for damages tor nonfatal injuries arising out of the negligence of a fellow servant the maximum liabilitv to be increased from £ 1,000 to £1.250. (7) One hundred per cent, compensation for the loss of an only eye, less the amount already paid for the loss of sight, and compensation for the partial loss of sight in excess of 50 per cent. (S) An allowance of up to £25 tor medical, surgical and hospital treatment, including first aid. (9) Compensation not to be a disqualification for the old age or widow s pensions. . . , _,, (10) Adoption of the principle of the English Act in regard to industrial diseases and additional diseases to be added. EXTENDING SCOPE OF ACT The commission also recommends that the scope of the Act be extended to include persons employed otherwise than by manual labour whose remuneration reaches £520 a year, instead ol the present limit of £400; that the definition of the term “worker” be enlarged to include share-milkers; that the Act should also cover workers such as taxi-drivers operating on a commission basis and casual workers employed not for the purpose of any trade or business carried on by the employer (with a three days’ qualification); and that the judge have discretionary power to deal with claims where employment is technically illegal. “In view of the evidence submitted by the employers’ representatives,” the report states, ‘‘we are not unanimously agreed that all the more highly-rated industries are at present in a position to bear the cost of the improved benefits we recommend, but we are agreed that from a social and humanitarian point of view, the amendments suggested are desirable.” ADDITIONAL DISEASES

Additional diseases recommended to be included in the scope of the Act are miners’ diseases and diseases arising out of the handling of basic slag, ulcerations arising out of the handling of tar pitch, bitumen, mineral oil or paraffin. It is also proposed in this connection to amend the Act to enforce liability upon an employer unless the disease is not due in whole or in part to the employment of the worker while in his service. The commissioners consider that no compensation should be paid unless the worker has been resident in New Zealand for a period of two years preceding the date of his first disability, except where the court is satisfied that the disease is not due to other causes than his employment in New Zealand. A. monopoly of workers’ compensation insurance has often been advocated in the House of Representatives, particularly by members of the Labour Party. The commission expresses the opinion that the establishment of such a monopoly would be a doubtful experiment in New Zealand at present and says it would, not be warranted by the possible savings in cost. ADVANTAGE TO WORKERS AUCKLAND SOLICITOR’S OPINION WORK OF THE COURT

“If it was clear that the recommenda- F tion was to request the present judge and his assessors to deal solely with - the workers’ compensation cases, that would be a move in the right direction and would relieve the court of work p which causes the workers’ compensa- g tion side of the court considerable de- t lay at the present time,” said Mr. J. € J. Sullivan, solicitor, when interviewed this morning concerning the finding of t the Royal Commission. i “The court in Auckland does not sit at regular periods and the delay is felt ] as a great hardship by injured men. 1 There are many points that the com- < mission’s report is silent on. If the i Workers’ Compensation Court suggested to be set up, is as at present constituted, it would probably meet with the approval of the workers,” said Mr. Sullivan. The Supreme Court was not a good substitute as had been suggested from some quarters. At the present time the Arbitration Court hearing workers’ compensation cases was somewhat in the nature of a judge and jury, and this gave some confidence to the workers. The procedure was comparatively simple when contrasted with the Supreme Court procedure and in the Arbitration Court there was power to accept as evidence medical certificates which were not strictly legal evidence. In the Supreme Court the worker has been deprived by Order-in-Council of the right to a trial by jury in negligence cases where his claim was against the employer. The suggestion therefore that the Supreme Court could | hear workers’ compensation cases | would not be a move in the direction ; of industrial peace. TO SUPREME COURT From the point of view of claims for negligence by the worker against the employer at present, the worker must pursue his remedy for negligence in the Supreme Court, and it is striking. Mr. Sullivan said, that the Royal Commission did not consider the right of the worker to pursue such claim in the Workers’ Compensation Court, where if he failed in his negligence claim against the employer, the Compensation Court could then fix the amount he was entitled to under the Workers’ Compensation Act. At the j present time, if the worker had a i claim for negligence against the em- j ployer, he had to proceed in the ' Supreme Court and if he failed in ! such a claim, the judge of the Supreme ! Court then fixed the amount of the workers’ compensation he was entitled to. less the costs of the negligence action on which the worker failed. "An eminent legal authority in j Wellington said recently that when a judge of the Supreme Court was asked to fix workers’ compensation in a certain case he stated to the counsel: “Surely you do not ask me to assess the workers’ compensation? I know nothing about the Workers’ Compensation Act.” His Honour, Mr. Justice j Frazer. in the present Arbitration Court, feaMi at rax*

Wcrkers* Compensation Act and its procedure, and it would certainly be c step in the right direction had there been a recommendation from the Royal Commission that all claims arising out of injuries suffered by workers in the course of their employment, whether by way of negligence or merely such as should be assessed under the Work- j ers' Compensation Act, should have been disposed of by the Workers' Compensation Court as it must be remembered that Mr. Justice Frazer has 1 presided on the Supreme Court Bench in New Z livan. BURDEN TO EMPLOYERS MR. SPENCER’S OPINION According: to Mr. Albert Spencer, president of the Auckland Employers’ j Association, the compensation court j commission proposed not only to in- ! crease the benefits payable under the j Workers’ Compensation Act. but also ! to enlarge its scope. This would in- j crease the insurance premiums pay- i able by the employer. The present j cost of insurance was high enough and any additional burden upon the cost i of production would have a very serious effect upon employment. If the j commission’s advice was taken there : would certainly be some addition to j the cost of living. “In order to protet themselves, em- • plovers will be obliged to demand a I medical certificate before engaging the j worker, if further concessions are j given to the workers’ compensation benefits,” said Mr. Spencer. “This will be a serious matter for ! many people having physical defects j which would be revealed by a medical ; examination, A latent defect is al- : ways liable to be brought out by. for J example, e:£ra strain. It may make j a worker more prone to suffer acci- j dents and may aggravate their j effects. “If a new court is set up more Gov- j eminent officials will be engaged to administer an amended Act. This is j a time for national economy, not for , incurring new’ expenditure. Before it adopts any scheme of this kind, the Government would be well advised to cut down its present reckless extravagance. “As for the delay in the hearing of j many cases I do not consider that this is always the fault of the court, ami it is often caused by the inconvenience of obtaining evidence,” said Mr. Spencer. "WHY ASSESSORS?" **lt seems desirable that some arrangement should be made for hearing compensation cases at more frequent intervals, but I see no reason why a special court, if one were set up, should include assessors,” commented Mr. H. P. Richmond, a barrister with considerable experience in compensation cases. “A judge sitting alone in the Supreme Court is required to decide medical, engineering and other technical questions, which are far more complicated than those which arise in workers’ compensation cases. Assessors are seldom employed and the judge receives the necessary assistance from the expert witnesses which are called.” Continuing, Mr. Richmond held that excessive delays did occur in the Arbitration Court, and delays were most undesirable because the worry over litigation often retarded the patient’s recovery and even caused his condition to become worse.